University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES 1

THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES AND SUSTAINABLE RATING SYSTEMS
IN PRACTICING SUSTAINABILITY

Azita Rezvan

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL
OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

December 2013

Copyright 2013 Azita Rezvan

2 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Dedication

To the memory of my beloved son
Aydin Salek

3 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Abstract
The purpose of this project is to review the development, launch, and implementation of the
green codes and rating systems for requiring and assessing sustainability in cities throughout the
United States, and particularly those in Los Angeles County. This research considers green
codes and sustainable rating systems in three steps: 1) green codes and sustainable rating systems
reviews, 2) California Green Building Standard (CALGreen) code, and 3) practicing
sustainability. The main question that this project seeks to answer is to what extent the
CALGreen codes promote sustainable buildings and help to reduce their costs. CALGreen is a
new policy, and there has been almost no research related to its implementation. CALGreen is
the first comprehensive and mandatory green building code in the United States and if
successful, gives hope for developing green code for existing buildings and adopting its
amendments in the California. Other state governments may follow California’s lead as they
have done in the past, and require green building measures in their state buildings codes. The
research goal is to formulate a series of recommendations for CALGreen improvement and for
sustainable building codes. A series of interviews with cities’ staffs in the Los Angeles County
revealed the current status of implementation of CALGreen codes. The recommendations
presented here are based on the more common complaints and suggestions of interviewees, the
shared experiences, and other research results. Since CALGreen has been launched for a limited
time, the Diffusion of Innovation theory is applied here to discuss the future prospects of
CALGreen codes.
Keywords: CALGreen, Sustainable Rating System, LEED, Green Building Codes

4 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table of Contents

Abstract 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 8

Study definition and research methodology 10
Chapter One: Building code legislation in the U.S 16
I.1 What is a building code?
I.2 The history of uniform building code in the U.S.
I.3 Development of the uniform building code cycle in the U.S.
I.4 Types of building codes
I.5 Energy efficiency codes and the process of the implementation in the U.S.
I.6 The role of building codes in the built environment and general welfare
I.7 Summary

Chapter Two: Sustainable assessment systems for buildings and urban spaces 38
II.1 Why is sustainability an emergency?
II.2 The importance of sustainable rating systems
II.3 History of sustainable assessment systems in the U.S.
II.4 Process of assessment
II.5 Finding the appropriate scale for sustainability
II.6 The most common assessment systems in the U.S.
a. National rating systems
b. Local rating systems
II.7 Categories and indicators of rating systems for buildings
II.8 The most common rating and ranking systems for urban scale in the U.S.
II.9 Criteria for selecting indicators and appropriate metrics
II.10 The most recent critiques about common rating systems
II.11 Summary

Chapter Three: CALGreen: The nation’s first mandatory green standards code 89
III.1 CALGreen; An Important Step toward Sustainability
III.2 CALGreen background formation and legislation
III.3 Overview of CALGreen code provisions
III.4 What is CALGreen?
III.5 CALGreen versus LEED adoption process
III.6 CALGreen versus LEED indicators
III.7 The most recent critiques of CALGreen
III.8: Summary
5 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Chapter Four: CALGreen best practices 120
IV.1 Methodology
IV.2 Research outcomes
IV.3 Summary

Chapter Five: Learning from the diffusion of innovation theory 149
V.1 Introduction and history of the theory
V.2 Key elements in diffusion
V.3. Adoption process and factors that influences the diffusion process
V.4 Theory success and limitation
V.5 Theory implementation in green building policies
V.6 Summary

Chapter Six: Recommendations and conclusion 172
VI.1 The importance of evaluating CALGreen
VI.2 Is CALGreen a successful policy?
VI.3 Adoption of CALGreen voluntary measures
VI.4 Adopting of CALGreen by other states
VI.5 Recommendations
VI.6 Summary and conclusion

References 205
Appendices 224
Appendix A CALGreen voluntary measures of Tier 1 and Tier 2 for residential
buildings
Appendix B CALGreen prerequisite and elective measures of Tier 1 and Tier 2 for
residential Buildings
Appendix C CALGreen voluntary measures of Tier 1 and Tier 2 for nonresidential
Buildings
Appendix D CALGreen prerequisite and elective measures of Tier 1 Tier 2 for
nonresidential Buildings
Appendix E Group A questionnaire: Interview questions for city authorities
Appendix F Group B questionnaire: Interview questions for architects/ builders/
developers

6 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

List of Tables
Table 1. Impacts of the Built Environment 41
Table 2. Comparing Green Building Rating Systems, Building Codes, and Building Standards 47
Table 3. Different Levels of Rating in LEED, Green Globes, and BREEAM for New
Construction ................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4. BREEAM Weightings in Europe and Middle Eastern Countries ................................... 64
Table 5. Indicators in Portney City Ranking ................................................................................ 66
Table 6. NRDC Ranking Criteria and Points .............................................................................. 67
Table 7. Comparison Between Technical Contents in LEED for ND and Green Communities 69
Table 8. Living Building Challenge Indicators. ........................................................................... .70
Table 9. Norwich 21 Set of Sustainable Indicators. ...................................................................... 74
Table 10. Comparison between Sustainable City Indicators in LEED ND, Living Building
Challenge, NRDC, and Green Communities ................................................................ 80
Table 11. Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Capita from the Consumption of Energy .................... 90
Table 12. Differences between Calgreen and Point-Base Rating Systems…………..…......……93
Table 13. Calgreen Mandatory Measures for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings…..…..100
Table 14. Comparing Main Scopes of Calgreen and LEED ....................................................... 106
Table 15. Comparing Main Categories of Calgreen and LEED ................................................. 107
Table 16. Calgreen Nonresidential Mandatory Measures versus LEED Criteria for New
Construction ............................................................................................................... 107
Table 17. Calgreen Residential Mandatory Measures versus LEED Criteria for Home …..…..110
Table 18. Calgreen Measures for Nonresidential Buildings That Are Not in LEED NC…........113
7 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 19. Population and Median Household Income Ranges in the County of Los Angeles to
Select the Cities for the Survey……………...….…………..………………....…….124
Table 20. County of Los Angeles’ Cities in Each Group .......................................................... .125
Table 21. Cities’ Authority Participated in the Survey ............................................................... 129
Table 22. Cities Participated in the Survey: Population, Housing Units, Median Household
Income, Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, and Homeownership Rate .... 130
Table 23. The Interviewees’ Positions and Offices .................................................................... 132
Table 24. Interviewees Answer to How Well Prepared Were the Local Design and Construction
Professionals to Address Calgreen on Their Projects When the Code Launched on
January First 2011 and Are Now ................................................................................ 133
Table 25. Number of Plan Checkers and Inspectors in Sample Cities ....................................... 135
Table 26. Number of Residential and Nonresidential Building Reviewed for Calgreen Codes in
Sample Cities .............................................................................................................. 137
Table 27. Budgeting and Associated Fee for Calgreen Plan Checking and Inspection .............. 139
Table 28. Green Building Ordinances before Calgreen Adoption in Several California Cities . 176
Table 29. Percentage of California Nonresidential LEED Registered and Certified Projects to all
Registered and Certified Projects, 2000-2013……………………….………………180
Table 30. Comparing CALGreen and IgCC for Energy Efficiency, Indoor Air Quality, and Water
Efficiency .................................................................................................................. 186

8 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Energy Consumption Estimates by Sector, 1949-2011 ........................................ 29
Figure 2. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Consumption by Sector, 1949-2011 ... 42
Figure 3. Indicators of Energy Intensity for four End-use Sectors in the U.S. 1985-2004. .......... 43
Figure 4. Energy Use, Activity, Intensity and Other Factors in the Residential Sector 1985-2004.
U.S. ........................................................................................................................................ 44
Figure 5. Commercial Energy Use, Activity, Weather, and Intensity 1985-2004 U.S. ................ 45
Figure 6. Development of LEED Rating Systems 1998-2010 ..................................................... 54
Figure 7. Green Globes Ratings Scale. ........................................................................................ 55
Figure 8. Comparison between Percentages of Total Possible Points in Four LEED Versions for
New Construction .................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 9. Comparing Technical Contents in LEED, Green Globes, and BREEAM for New
Construction........................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 10. A Supposed Case of Standard Rogers S-curve for Diffusion of Innovation ............. 153
Figure 11. Number of Cities with LEED Requirements for Public Buildings 2000-2012 ........ 163
Figure 12. Number of Nonresidential LEED Registered and Certified Projects per Year, 2000-
2012 ..................................................................................................................................... 167
Figure 13. Map of the Cities Adopted LEED Requirement for Public Municipal Buildings 2000-
2012 ..................................................................................................................................... 169
Figure 14. Map of the Cities that have Signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement ...... 185
Figure 15. The Estimate of Total and Public Sector Dollar Construction Spending in the U.S.
2000-2012 ............................................................................................................................ 196
9 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Figure 16: Comparison between Pick Years of the Nonresidential Annual Construction Spending
and Nonresidential LEED Registered Projects 2000-2012 ................................................. 199

01 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

The Role of CALGreen Codes and Sustainable Rating Systems in
Practicing Sustainability
The oil crisis of the1970s was an important alarm for the U.S. politically, socially,
and economically. It revealed the country’s dramatic dependency on fossil fuels, and
consequently spurred questions regarding the country energy policies. The immediate
effects of energy crisis, growing populations, and pollution caused different policy
advocates to develop several strategies, guidelines, and standards to address the problem.
For the first time, in 1989 Sustainable Development was posed as a comprehensive
concept to address the scarcity of natural resource. The building industry responded later
than other industries. The inherent diversity of buildings styles and locations, varying
values, differing technologies, and the relatively long lifetime all made it difficult to
come to an agreement on appropriate scale for measuring sustainability and to develop
standards and codes.
The twenty-first century brought a growing interest in developing building
energy codes and environmental rating systems and many urban areas began to formulate
and implement their environmental goals and codes. Despite these efforts, however,
there have been few uniform energy efficiency codes for construction implemented
across the U.S.
Assessing buildings and urban space sustainability has a very recent history;
however, the idea has quickly spread worldwide. Environmental rating systems started in
1970s after the energy crisis. In the year 2000, the initial version of Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED), the first U.S. green building certification system,
00 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) was launched. Although today
numerous voluntary compliances and incentive based rating systems, products and
technologies for measuring sustainability are available, LEED is the most known
standard.
Although rating systems are regarded as the best method of measuring
sustainability, a mix of different policies and rules in different communities and in
different scales such as green building codes, smart codes, and sustainable city codes may
be considered for practicing sustainability. Many of these programs fundamentally share
the same idea, especially in terms of sustainable environmental indicators, while for
economic and social indicators there is less agreement. Furthermore, different cities
approach sustainability in many different ways. However, due to lack of both sufficient
collaborative networks and competition, few share the result of their initiatives.
This study consists of three parts: the first part of this study is a review of building
codes, sustainable rating systems, and their adoption processes in the U.S. The second
part is an analysis of CALGreen and its launching as the first mandatory statewide
standard code. The third and final part is an evaluation of the success and failures of
CALGreen in achieving its goals.
The first part begins with a review of building codes policies in the U.S. and then
continues by examining the existing sustainable rating systems to illustrate the
assumptions and criteria for developing sustainable building codes. The study
summarizes our current knowledge about the history of rating systems, the most common
sustainable assessment systems and the process of assessment, categories and indicators
of the common existing rating systems related to sustainable buildings adopted in the
02 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

U.S, and compares and contrasts the common basis and differences in these systems.
Since building rating systems are more fully developed, the study first reviews them, and
then continues to identify elements of the sustainable city rankings and sustainable rating
communities. In order to examine the efficiency of rating systems’ elements, the most
known city ranking systems are examined and compared to identify the advantages and
limitations of using the applicable rating systems.
In 2010, California adopted a mandatory green building regulation (CALGreen), a
comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all new residential and commercial
buildings in the state. This regulation is expected to result in major reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water use. CALGreen became
effective on January 2011.
The second part of the study examines CALGreen and compares it with point-
based rating systems, LEED in particular, to discover its efficiency in achieving its goals.
The study reviews the CALGreen mandatory codes and its voluntary measures (Tier1 and
Tier 2), how the CALGreen was developed, and the elements of implementation for
residential and nonresidential code provisions. However, the main aim of this research is
to compare and contrast CALGreen and LEED indicators and their adoption process.
Furthermore, the study investigates what levels of LEED certification are achievable by
CALGreen and its tiers.
Most of the critiques about CALGreen are of its formulation. Despite the fact that
its formulation might be worthy of critique, now that CALGreen is mandated and its
observation in practice can provide a realistic critique of its successes and failures. The
third part of this study details further research on new approaches to current best practices
03 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

in sustainability by evaluating a number of different Southern California cities that
practice CALGreen. The aim is to examine advantages and the limitations of the code in
these cities. Toward this end, several cities in Los Angeles County (such as Santa
Monica, Los Angeles, Glendale, Burbank, and Alhambra) are selected for review of their
green programs, their achievements, and their barriers toward a sustainable city. The
selection of case study cities was based on the city population, the city median household
income, and the city sustainability ranking. These cities are selected as representative of
differing types of cities to present a variety of the state’s cities.
The first step was to collect information and data about the impact of CALGreen
adoption after two years of launching. The research includes in-depth interviews of key
personnel and a survey of the related authorities in these cities. The purpose of these
interviews was to understand and document the details of the practice. Case studies were
used to analyze the costs and benefit of these codes for the city, contractors, and owners;
the accessible human and material resources; the easy and hard codes criteria; and
successes and failures of CALGreen in these cities. In addressing the legal and economic
concerns of sustainable code legislations, the study draws from diffusion of innovation
theory as a theoretical framework. The final chapters intend to realize how the idea of
CALGreen, as a uniform statewide code, can diffuse, and how it can be adopted by other
states. The final chapter represents a summary of the study, conclusions, and
recommendations for CALGreen revision.
CALGreen’s purpose is to develop a state regulated standard similar to those
developed by the private unregulated rating systems such as LEED; however, it is
different from other private green rating systems because it is part of the state’s
04 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

mandatory building code. While local jurisdictions retain the discretion to implement
stricter standards, CALGreen sets minimum thresholds for both private and public
buildings. Many new public and private buildings have already become LEED certified
through the USGBC. Green building certification is voluntary in private sector
construction especially for residential buildings. Implementing the requirements of
CALGreen is initially costly, which may outweigh the associated benefits and result in a
loss for the stakeholders, particularly in a very challenging real estate market.
Conversely, a slower real estate market provides best opportunity for builders and city
staff to implement new CALGreen codes, become familiar with its requirements, and
develop creative ways to make it more economically feasible in the marketplace.
However, the additional costs remain formidable, and this is the main reason for
developers resistance to CALGreen amendments implementation.
Since some cities had already adopted different green codes and strategies prior to
CALGreen, practicing the new CALGreen code in these cities may pose fewer
impediments, while for other cities for which these are new requirements, particularly
those with a relative lack of resources, CALGreen is a significant challenge.
It is important to note that an exact measurement of the impact of CALGreen in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water use may not be
attainable. Since CALGreen merely adopts existing state requirements especially for
energy efficiency standards, the impact would be a modest.
Other state governments may follow California’s lead, as they have done in the
past by adopting green building measures in their state’s buildings codes. Many of these
05 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

states may be waiting to see the outcomes of CALGreen or strive for the green code as a
part of International Building Codes (IBC).
The first part of this study consists of a literature review of building codes’
background, especially green codes in the U.S. This is followed by research on the most
common rating and ranking systems to derive a general index and categories for
sustainable cities. The second part of has the same pattern for CALGreen codes. It starts
with a CALGreen literature review and follows with an analysis of CALGreen compared
to LEED. The third part of the study includes a deep open-ended survey and structured
interviews with key individual personnel and related authorities in the selected cities.
Two different kinds of inquiry are conducted to obtain the opinion of city authorities’ and
that of builders. The authorities were selected for their position in the city planning
departments. The builders were selected from different cities based on the prevalence of
their new project certification and availability. These case studies were intended to
answers the main question of the study noted at the beginning of this proposal. Gathered
qualitative and quantities data on practicing CALGreen are followed by
recommendations for next cycles of CALGreen.
This study further seeks to determine if the State of California plans to continue
encouraging Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or other third
party certifications, or will endeavor for CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 compliances.

06 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Chapter One: Building Code Legislation in the U.S.
The purpose of this chapter is to identify building code policy and to provide an
explanation of energy efficiency codes. The study starts with the history of building code
legislation, and then explains development of the building code cycle in the U.S.,
differing building codes, and the process by which a building code becomes law in a
particular jurisdiction. The research reviews energy efficiency codes and the process of
the implementation of these codes in the International Building Codes (IBC). At the end,
the study review legal and economic concerns of modern building code legislation.
I.1: What is a Building Code?
Design, policy, and management are three basic elements which shape and
control the built-made environment. Design endows the dialogue among building
physical component; policy is the legal framework that sets up the intent for the desired
relationship, and management concerns safety, maintenance, and building performance
(Parolek, Parolek, & Crawford, 2008).
“A building code, or building control, is a set of rules that specify the minimum
acceptable level of safety for constructed objects such as buildings and non-building
structures” (Websters online dictionary, para.1). Buildings are directly related to lives,
and building codes are designed to protect the safety and health of not only the occupants
but others in the general population who may be impacted, either now or in the future. A
building code is a scientific recommendation unless adopted by a jurisdiction and
becomes a law. Generally architects and engineers are the most common to adhere to
07 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

building codes in their practice, however other related building occupations (such as
safety inspectors, environmental scientists, real estate developers, contractors and
subcontractors, manufacturers of building products and materials, insurance companies,
facility managers, tenants, and others) may follow these codes as well (Websters online
dictionary, 2006).
The components of building codes are structure, mechanic, plumbing, electricity,
lighting, heating, cooling, refrigeration, ventilation, fire-resistance and protection system,
means of egress, materials, interior environment, energy use, and accessibility by people
with physical disabilities. These building regulations are intended to protect lives and
property. Depending on the type of occupancy, building function, type of construction,
and building height and area, these regulations may be more or less restrictive.
Two main different types of development policy and regulations are in use by city
authorities: Zoning Codes and Building Codes. These are two different set of laws,
simultaneously regulated by a jurisdiction for a region. They exist side by side and do
not conflict.
Zoning Code is about the harmonization of improvements and surrounding
environment and typically dictates height, volume, setbacks, type of use, design and
parking, and so on. A jurisdiction is typically divided into several zoning districts with
its own set of regulations. Once the requirements of the zoning code are met, the
architect, engineer, or owner have some discretion regarding design, structural frame, and
material, as long as they do not conflict with building codes.
Building codes are designed to respond to the natural geographic features of the
site and area to make the building safe for its intended use. In short, zoning codes
08 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

attempt to horizontally harmonize the building shape and envelope to the artificial
geographic features, while building codes vertically match the building structure with the
natural environment. In other words, zoning codes are based upon the social use of the
environment, while building codes are based on natural laws of physics. Therefore, it is
not surprising to know that the building codes have a very long history, but the history of
zoning dates only back to the recent and modern industrialized urbanism. “The theory
behind it [zoning] was sound, based on industrialized urban condition of the time”
(Parolek, Parolek, & Crawford, 2008, p. xiv) rather than fire that was the theory behind
building codes. Still fire safety remains the most important concern in building codes,
and is estimated to be the reason behind 75% of building codes (Brannigan, 2007, p. 67).
I.2 The History of Uniform Building Code in the U.S.
Although building regulation has a long history, it was not until the early 1900s
that the Fire Underwriters Association developed the first formal building code in the
East Coast. Created to the interests of insurance companies, protecting the building
instead of the people was at its core (International Code Council, Inc.). National codes
directed toward the safety of the occupants were not developed until the 1930’s and 40’s,
and the first edition of Uniform International Building Code was not published until
1997.
By contrast, the history of building regulation goes back 4000 years. The first
known building code was the Code of Hammurabi, ordered by the King of Babylonian
(1780 BC). The code in a stone slab, and is identified as laws 229-233. These laws
specified:
09 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

229 If a builder build a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and
the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to
death.
230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.
231. If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of
the house.
232. If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and
inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he
shall re-erect the house from his own means.
233. If a builder build a house for someone, even though he has not yet completed
it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his
own means. (Hammurabi's Code of laws, para.3)
The Old Testament of the Bible, specifically the Law of Moses, also contains an
early form of a building code. Deuteronomy, chapter 22 verse 8, states, “In case you
build a new house, you must also make a parapet for your roof that you may not place
bloodguilt upon your house because someone falling might fall from it.”
McFann (2006) explains a paradigm shift in modern codes: “Modern building
codes shifted from outlining the punishment for poor construction to mandating
requirements that would make building safe and sanitary to occupy” (para.3). The first
building and fire safety requirements mandated in American colonies predate the U.S.
itself, prior to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. British colonies building codes were
a copy of London building regulations legislated aftermath of the Fire of London in 1666.
“Certain building and fire safety requirements were mandated in New Amsterdam (1645),
21 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Virginia (1662), Boston (1683), Philadelphia (1696), and Williamsburg (1699)” (Tubbs
& Meacham, 2007, p. 18). However, the first preventive codes, sets of the U.S. fire
protection, were developed in 1873 (Brannigan, 2007, p. 66). In this century,
consequences of Europeans radical socio economic changes due to the Industrial
Revolution and enormous immigration to the U.S., resulted in a series of building
legislation (Dictionary-Definition of Building Code), that can be seen as the beginning of
modern building codes. These new sets of laws were mostly focused on fire codes in the
aftermath of dreadful fires experienced in large cities.
In the nineteen century, unhealthy workers’ class tenements caused the New York
State legislation to enact the first comprehensive building code, the Tenement Housing
Act of 1967. The code was only for rental multifamily apartments and the main
objectives of legislation were to require adequate room ventilation, fire escapes, roof and
stair banisters, a sufficient number of toilets, and effective sanitation. Reports later
showed the act failed and was revised several times, leading to the Tenement House Act
of 1901, which was the beginning of modern code enforcement in the United States
(Plunz, 1990).
It was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that the first national
building code was developed in Baltimore. Although Baltimore passed its first building
code in 1859, the Great Baltimore Fire which occurred in 1904, pushed the insurance
industry to develop a Handbook of the Baltimore City Building Laws that was published
in 1906 and eventually adopted in 1908 (Brannigan, 2007).
The twentieth century was a century of the creation model building codes as a set
of suggested rules. “Conflagrations became a bit too common in the late 1800s. The
20 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

insurance industry desired measures to help limit its losses. Also, state and local
government began responding to significant fire events” (Tubbs & Meacham, 2007, p.
17). Prior to the 1920s, most building regulations were local as different private
developing building code organizations formed and provided building codes for
broadened regions. In contrast to other state and federal legislations, building codes were
developed by private companies and it stayed in their hands almost to the end of the
twentieth century (Tubbs & Meacham, 2007). Three major private groups published their
models in the U.S. One of these three models became the basis for a three-region model
code and each jurisdiction adopted one of them. The history of these three private groups
follows:
1- The Pacific Coast Building Officials Conference (later to become the
International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO]) formed in 1922, published
Uniform Building Code (UBC) code in 1928. The UBC was adopted from west to the
Missouri river (including California) and was the most broadly applied model.
2- The Building Official and Code Administrators (BOCA) from Illinois, was
established in 1915 and in 1950 published the Basic Building Code (BBC). This code
was used primarily in the north central and northeastern states.
3- The Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) was established
in 1940. This group published the Standard Building Code (SBC) in 1945, which
adopted in most of the southeast.
Revised editions of these codes were published approximately every three years
(Ching & Winkel, 2006). Even though these model-building codes were meant to offer
uniform standards, each jurisdiction adopted them with their own local modification.
22 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

“By the 1970s, there were some 30,000 local jurisdictions, each with the ability to
regulate buildings differently, with some 13,000 applicable standards to consider” (Tubbs
& Meacham, 2007, p. 21). One by one, large cities in the U.S. developed their own
building codes. The resulting variation in codes not only caused complexity for builders
who might intend to work in different municipalities, but also created extra costs for
revising building regulations and training city staff, which was necessitated with each
revision of the codes or essentially every three years. In the early 1990s, many
authorities and interest groups realized the necessity of developing a national building
code similar to that in other countries. In 1995, the nation’s three model code groups
formed the International Code Council (ICC) as a non-profit organization dedicated to
developing a single and comprehensive set of coordinated national model construction
codes. In 1997, the first edition of the International Building Code (IBC) was published
by revising and merging the three model codes (Ching & Winkel, 2006). Since none of
the three model code groups serves their clients any more, all municipalities in the U.S.
are expected to adopt the IBC. This adoption was not expected to be immediate, but
rather over time, recognizing that municipalities might need to adopt an interim
customized version for a short period due to conflicts with their existing codes or
difficulties in adopting certain chapters, particularly those on energy efficiency.
I.3 Development of the Uniform Building Code Cycle in the U.S.
Government agencies in most countries are in charge of developing, approving,
and enforcing building codes. Since these codes are enforced by a central government,
they are named national building codes. However, because of the limitation of in the
23 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

U.S. federal government in legislation, building codes are mostly in the hands of local
authorities (Websters online dictionary, 2006). Local jurisdictions can develop codes by
themselves or using consultants. In both cases, local jurisdictions adopt and enforce the
codes. Tubbs and Meacham argue that because of the U.S. Constitution, building code
legislation system in the U.S. will differ from the most other countries. The U.S.
constitution allows for only a specific set of powers to be held by the federal government;
others are states or people power. Police is the most important authority that is delegated
to local or regional governments and as part of police power, building codes, which are
concerned with the health, safety, and general welfare of the public (Tubbs & Meacham,
2007). Policies, like authorities, may be found at the federal, state, or local level. Some
policies, such as standards for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are federal
requirements; building codes mostly work at the state level; the control of land use or
zoning is regulated at municipal level; and some design and management plans vary by
local concern (Parolek, Parolek, & Crawford, 2008). Tubbs and Meacham state that at
the state and/or local level, often there are at least two departments with regulatory
authority for building construction and fire safety:
The building department typically has the power to issue building permits, accept
designs, and approve construction documents. Through the course of
construction, the building department is typically responsible for ensuring that a
building design meets the applicable codes, and that the actual construction meets
the design documentation. Once the final building has been inspected and
approved, a certificate of occupancy is issued, allowing the building to be
24 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

occupied and used. The fire department has the power to inspect the building
according to the fire code after occupancy. (2007, pp. 23-24)
Until 1997, revised versions of the BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI codes were
published about every three year. In 2000, the International Building Code (IBC) by the
International Code Council (ICC) was published and it replaced the BOCA, ICBO, and
SBCCI codes. Since then, consistent with the prior codes, a revised edition was
published every three years.
The intent of designing International Building Codes (IBC) was to develop a
series of uniform building codes in the U.S. states. In other words, with the IBC,
building codes have been elevated a local or state level to the federal level or country
level like most of the rest world. The ICC afterward has developed variety of building
codes including: International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), International Existing
Building Code (IECC), International Fire Code (IFC), International Fuel Gas Code
(IFGC), International Green Construction Code (IgCC), International Mechanical Code
(IMC), ICC Performance Code (ICCPC), International Plumbing Code (IPC),
International Private Sewage Disposal Code (IPSDC), International Property
Maintenance Code (IPMC), International Residential Code (IRC), International
Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC), International Wildland Urban Interface Code
(IWUIC), and International Zoning Code (IZC). As an additional note, ICC is not a
governmental agency; however governmental members as representative governmental
units from different states can join as voting members (ICC, 2012a).

25 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

I.4 Types of Building Codes
Building codes typically contain requirements concerning a broad range of
construction and use parameters including structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing,
historic preservation, ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), fire protection, and egress
systems. There are additional requirements related to sanitary facilities, natural lighting,
ventilation, energy efficiency, and water consumption, which may ask for different
requirements based on such factors as occupancy, construction type, location, floor area,
height, and stories. After identifying the zoning code for any proposed construction
project, the second step is defining the occupancy, then construction, location, floor area,
height, and stories. Tubbs and Meacham (2007) explain that design options are limited
by each requirement of the codes. Regarding construction phases, “there are four main
facets of building regulation: general design; construction; occupancy and maintenance;
and fire and hazard prevention” (p. 22). Building codes in most cases act as construction
safety and fire prevention and protection guidelines. Modern building and fire codes
guide all phases of development, from the initial design through all other construction
phases.
While some zoning codes run parallel to building code requirements, the main
consideration and logic of zoning codes is completely different from building codes. For
example, in a particular neighborhood, building height maybe restricted because of the
city landscape or historical preservation regardless of construction type. By contrast,
building codes are relatively uniform from place to place, and city landscape will do little
to affect the method or manner of construction.
26 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

A. Occupancy. Ten occupancy groups have been defined by the International
unified Building Codes (IBC). They are: Assembly (A), Business (B), Educational (E),
Factory and Industrial (F), High Hazard (H), Institutional (I), Mercantile (M), Residential
(R), Storage (S), and Utility and Miscellaneous (U). These groupings are based on the
function of the buildings, from a building code perspective, taking into consideration four
components: the population who gather in the building, the period of time that they stay
in it, their ability to exit from the building in an emergency, and the possibility of
hazardous material exploring or linkage. The larger the population, the longer their
duration of occupancy, the less capable occupants, and the more dangerous the stored
materials, the more restrictive codes. For this reason, the Residential group has been
divided to four subgroups: R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4. In this group, the building function is
residential but the population or residents’ characteristics determine a building subgroup.
For example, a single-family house is classified as part of the R-3 subgroup, while
apartments are classified as R-2 group, which the building codes for this subgroup is
more restricted. As another example, a 24 hour childcare for more than five children 2 ½
years age or less falls under the I-2 (Institutional) classification, however if the same
facility is for five or fewer and less than 24 hour falls under R-3 (Residential) group.
B: Type of construction. Construction type is classified by types of materials that
are used in the construction of a building or structure materials and fire resistance of the
parts of the building. Building constructions are divided to five general groups, Type I to
Type V. These types are based on the fire resistance of materials for the main building
structure and important building elements such as walls and roof. From Type I to Type V
the construction is less fire-resistant. Therefore, as type progress from Type I to Type V
27 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

occupancy member of stories and building area are increasingly restricted. The
expectation to this rule is addition of active fire protection, which may ease construction
requirements. Every type, with exception of Type IV has two subgroups A and B.
Subgroup A is more fire resistant than subgroup B. Categorization is based on the
combustibility of building components such as structure frame, bearing walls, nonbearing
walls, floor construction, roof construction, and is described as the fire-resistance rating
of these building members in hours. The aim is to prevent the structure from immediate
collapsing in case of a fire accident and temperature changes. For example, for assembly
use in Type V-B (the lowest fire-resistance rating construction type) only one story a
maximum 40 feet in height and an area no more than 5,500 square feet is allowed. At the
other extreme, and for the same occupancy, for a Type I-A, the building code imposes no
limitation on height, stories, and area, on the condition that structural frame and beaming
interior and exterior walls resist three hours, floor construction two hours, and roof
construction one and half hours
C: Location on property. The location refers to the placement of the building on
a lot according based on distance from other buildings, public streets, and property line.
Fire-resistance requirements for exterior walls and wall opening requirements are based
on fire-separation distances. Building codes are designed based on minimum
requirements for safety and welfare. While zoning codes also address distance such as
improvement setback, these are based on city landscaping, required infrastructure, access,
and density control among other concerns, as opposed to safety.
D: Allowable floor area. The building code sets limits on floor area of a building
or a multistory building based on two parameters: occupancy group and type of
28 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

construction. Allowable area increases with the additional of active fire protection
installation. Floor area restrictions are particularly restrictive in Group F (Factory and
industrial) and Group H (High-Hazard). For example, Type I-A which is the most fire-
resistant structure type, has no area limitation with an exception for High Hazard
occupancy which is limited to 21,000 square feet per story.
E: Height and number of stories. The building code also sets the maximum
height and number of permitted stories based on occupancy group and type of
construction. Allowable height and stories can increase with the installation of an
approved automatic fire sprinkler.
In summary, every aspect of the building code serves to limit the options for
design. The code starts with occupancy type, which most affects design and then
construction type, as the second factor which affects design. Other codes such as
engineering requirements, exits/egress, separations, shafts, fire protection, and fire
extinguishing systems are addressed based on occupancy, construction, location, floor
area, height and stories.
I.5 Energy Efficiency Codes and the Process of the Implementation
in the U.S.
In the U.S., residential and commercial buildings together use more energy (see
Figure 1) and emit more carbon dioxide (see Figure 2) than either the industrial or the
transportation (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012). Based on 2010 data,
buildings use 42% of the country’s total energy, 74% of electricity, and are the causes of
40% of total CO
2
emission. This becomes even more meaningful when we know that
29 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

U.S. primary energy consumption has increased 1.5 times per capita from 1949-2010
(214 to 317 million BTU/capita) and is almost five times more per capita consumption of
the rest of the world (EIA - International Energy Data and Analysis, 2008; 2012).
Despite the fact that new buildings count for only 1% of all buildings, building energy
efficiency codes are an important first step in reduction of energy consumption and GHG
emission by buildings (BECP, 2011).
State and local authorities have an important role on enforcing these codes.
“Building codes are promulgated and enforced by the states and local governments,
except for manufactured housing standards, which have been the responsibility of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)” (U.S. Department of Energy;
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Building Technologies Program, 2010, p. 11).

Figure 1. U.S. Energy Consumption Estimates by Sector, 1949-2011. Data adapted from
Total Energy Data, by U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012, Retrieved from
www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/#consumption.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Trillion Btu
Building Industrial Transportation
31 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

The Department of Energy Organization Act transferred developing building
energy codes from the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Department of Energy
(DOE). The DOE was established in 1976. In late 1979, the DOE published the first
comprehensive building energy performance standards (BEPS) to enforce “the designed
energy consumption of a new building did not exceed the energy level specified for that
building type in its applicable climate area” (p. 24). In the 1980s, with the support of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE),
The DOE developed methodology, tools, and energy efficiency codes for commercial and
residential buildings (U.S. Department of Energy; Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy; Building Technologies Program, 2010).
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 addresses energy efficiency program for energy
conservation in buildings in its first Title (FERC, 2005). In response to this act, the
Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) was established in 1993 and “mandated DOE to
participate in the model national codes development process and help states adopt and
implement progressive energy codes” (EPA, 2012, para.14).
There have been considerable recent modifications in the U.S. building codes
which have influenced energy efficiency codes as well. Energy efficiency codes were
never part of BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI Building Codes. BECP supported ICC to
develop the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Before that time,
ASHRAE standard was the energy efficiency reference, mostly about cooling and heating
systems, and especially for mechanical engineers. Both ASHRAE and ICC like other
building codes started to put their codes onto a 3-year development cycle. The last cycle
year of ASHRAE was 2010 and for ICC was 2012 (released in 2011).
30 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

In its chapter 13, IBC refers the designer to IECC whose concept is to regulate
building envelope design and construction to promote effective use of energy. The code
is applicable to both existing buildings and historical buildings. Energy codes address the
roof, building envelope, foundation, lighting, ceiling, walls, pools, thermal distribution
systems, water pipe insulation, west facing glazing, air leakage, U-factor and SHGC
ratings, window area, and fixed shading devices.
The ICC has developed a new set of codes, named International Green
Construction Code (IgCC). The IgCC considers sustainable features other than energy
efficiency, such as site development and land use, water resource conservation and
efficiency, atmospheric quality, indoor environmental quality and comfort, and material
resource conservation and efficiency (International Code Council, Inc, 2010). The first
version of IgCC, version 1.0, was released March 2010 and the last version of the IgCC
for new and existing buildings was been published in 2012. Several states including
Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, and Rhode Island have adopted the IgCC
(ICC, 2013).
In 1978, the California Energy commission established the Energy Efficiency
Standards for residential and nonresidential Buildings (California Energy Standards,
2012) as part 6 of Title 24 and “probably the most comprehensive minimum energy
efficiency standards for buildings in the world” (International Energy Agency, 2008, p.
46). In 2008, California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) published the first
California Green Building Standards Codes as part 11 of Title 24. It became effective
January 2010, is now a supplement to the 2007 California Building Standards Code, and
considers planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation,
32 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental air quality (California
Green Building Standards Code, 2009).
I.6 The Role of Building Codes in the Built Environment and General
Welfare
In the lack of controlling policies, the building has become the main
environmental pollutant sector. “In the U.S., buildings are responsible each year for 39%
of all carbon dioxide emissions, consume 71% of the nation’s electricity and account for
70% of all landfill waste” (Eberhard, 2010, p. 3). Designed to protect the general
welfare, building codes may be seen to undermine the traditional concept of the creative
freedom and autonomy of the architect and designer. Building codes in recent decades
have become increasingly restricted, and there may be a question of how far public
policies can or should influence building market, the day-to-day practices of designers,
and individual rights.
Allenby (1999) states that “policy is ineffectual, even harmful, unless it bears a
reasonable resemblance to the underlying phenomena it is intended to address” (p. 148).
Cote and Gran (2003) evaluate compulsion of building codes by safety and risk. They
argue that neither risk nor safety is an absolute issue. “Financial resources are the most
obvious sacrifice required to increase safety” (p. 53). Safety and risk are two negatively
correlated variables in which one increases as the other decreases, and vice versa. Since
there are other indicators implicated in this equation, evaluating required safety needs to
be related to the costs, not only financially but as an aggregation of complex factors such
as social, political, legal, and other parameters. Therefore, it would be individual,
33 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

organizational, or societal decision makers’ right to decide whether a particular increase
in safety is worth the cost for society. Cote and Grant conclude that voluntary codes and
standards in the U.S. provide the opportunity for decision makers to evaluate all
stakeholders’ benefits (including users, consumers, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors,
labor, testing laboratories, enforcers, and federal, state, and local government officials) to
consider all of the diverse factors at hand and to develop a consensus on an acceptable
level of standardization.
The concern about the balance between the achievable safety and other sacrificed
values coexists with the history of building codes. In 1941, Vermilya, in his article,
Building Codes: Administration vs. Techniques, questioned the cost of building codes.
Referencing the building legislation’s effect on every country’s social and economic
structure, he argues that this legislation undermines the existence of a reasonable analysis
comparing achieved health and safety resulted from building codes versus sacrificed
human needs. Vermilya explains that when code requirements are too high, society pays
unjustified expenses on building construction.
Standards established in building codes should be placed at a level which provides
the greatest protection to life, health, and welfare without causing extensive
building costs. There exists, however, no known method of balancing this type of
social and economical account. Balance can be achieved only through intelligent
coordination of experience and research data. (p. 130)
Hammitt et al. (1999) argue the effects of increasing building cost because of the
new codes obligation on increasing health and safety risks through “income” and “stock”
effects.
34 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

We estimate that a code change that increases the nationwide cost of constructing
and maintaining homes by $150 (0.1% of the average cost to build a single-family
home) would induce offsetting risks yielding between 2 and 60 premature
fatalities or, including morbidity effects, between 20 and 800 lost quality-adjusted
life years (both discounted at 3%) each year the code provision remains in effect.
To provide a net health benefit, the code change would need to reduce risk by at
least this amount. (Hammitt, Belsky, Levy, & Graham, p. 1037)
The share of median household income spent on housing related expenses has
increased from 23.1% in 1996 to 28% in 2006 (Center for Housing Policy Leadership,
2008). Gyourko and Saiz based on a research in 2005 indicate that there are
economically large differences in construction costs across U.S. housing markets. They
acknowledge that it is difficult to accurately measure the potential impacts of local
regulation pertaining to construction. However, they found “that a more stringent local
regulatory environment also is associated with somewhat higher costs. This impact is
smaller than others, but the noisiness of this measure suggests that ours is a lower bound
estimate” (Gyourko & Saiz, 2006, p. 676).
Eisenberg et al. (2002) in a survey about the barriers to code approval of green
building argue that the provisions of new and alternative building codes are important
factors. The results of their survey indicate that:
1- Applications are more likely to be denied if they are in clear conflict with the
intent of the code or if they lack sufficient supporting information about the green
product, material, system, or design to satisfy safety concerns.
35 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

2- Both code officials and code users considered an existing code provision more
likely to contribute to the approval of a green product, material, system, or design
application, but only code users considered a code provision to contribute to the
denial of such applications.
3- Applications for green products, materials, systems, or designs are avoided
because supporting information will take too long to acquire or does not exist.
(Eisenberg, Done, & Ishida, p. 21)
Buildings and communities with well-enforced and up-to-date codes are expected
to experience a decrease in the risk of losses (International Code Council, Inc., 2003).
One of the reasonable trade-offs for new code legislation is that insurance companies can
reduce rates for property insurance. Although home insurance is a relatively small share
of homeowners income, about 1%, due to increases in home construction cost and
disaster risks, home insurance premiums increased 83% from 1995 to 2005 (Center for
Housing Policy Leadership, 2008).
While this savings in insurance premiums could be cited as a reasonable tradeoff
for increased construction costs and more restrictive construction codes, some of the new
codes are not related to the concerns of insurance companies, in particular the codes that
determine unintended consequences and risks as Eisenberg et al. named them.
It is worth nothing that some of the new codes may have other benefits to the end
users. The energy efficiency codes, for example, decrease utility bills in the long term,
clearly more in the interest of occupants than that of insurance companies or
homebuilders.

36 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

I.7 Summary
This first chapter was a literature review of building codes in the U.S. While the
main goal of these codes is to protect health and welfare of the population, there is
limited research and literature that analyze, evaluate, and measure the safety and health
benefits of modern building codes (Hammitt, Belsky, Levy, & Graham, 1999). In recent
decades, there has been tremendous change in the building codes in many different
aspects. Significant changes over time are summarized as follow:
 Preliminary building codes were sets of punishments for builders in case of an
accident. Recent building codes, like health programs, have a preventive approach that
sets requirements to make buildings safe for occupants and others.
 Modern building codes were first developed to protect buildings. More recent
concerns are the welfare of occupants and others.
 Modern building codes began chiefly to address the concerns of insurance
companies regarding preserving the building. Newer codes consider the safety and
welfare of people.
 Recent building codes are becoming increasingly restrictive, adding new chapters
on subjects such as nonhazardous materials, natural light, and indoor air quality. While
fire safety, the initial reason for developing modern building codes, still plays an
important role in these codes.
 The theory behind zoning was sound when it started at the early 1900s. Noise
control is no longer a main concern of zoning codes.
 Originally unique to a locality, building codes are now implemented on a nation-
wide scale.
37 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

 Modern building codes initially considered community health and welfare in
limited surrounding areas, area a building might directly affect. More recently, identified
problems such as global warming require new codes which consider the whole earth and
the life of people on it, expanding to address areas a building might indirectly affect as
well.
 Building codes are evolving from a prescriptive approach to performance-based
provisions.
 Energy codes have a newer history than other building codes and started as a
response to oil crisis after the 1970s. Green codes cover more fields than energy such as
water and have recently been considered in the building codes.

38 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Chapter Two: Sustainable Assessment Systems for Buildings
and Urban Spaces
The purpose of this chapter is to identify and describe the existing sustainable
rating systems for buildings, communities, and cities in the U.S. The chapter reviews: (a)
our current knowledge about the history of rating systems, (b) the most common
sustainable assessment systems and the process of assessment, (c) categories and
indicators of the common existing rating systems related to sustainable buildings adopted
in the U.S., and (d) compares and contrasts the common basis and differences in these
systems. The study examines the advantages and limitations of rating systems. It is
important to identify, understand, and evaluate these systems because of the significant
roles they play in the development of standards and public policies.
Although the study reviews most known national and local rating systems, the
majority of them were designed for buildings and only a few concern urban form and
spaces. Therefore, the study first reviews rating systems, and then continues to identify
elements of sustainable city rankings and sustainable rating communities. The research
illustrates that while the rating systems have reasonable achievements at building scale;
these systems are still at an explanatory stage for urban spaces and new developments.
City ranking systems can be considered a good means of designing an efficient
sustainable assessment system, which could be adopted by cities that practice
sustainability. However, rating systems are more about policy adoption and involve a
legal framework of environmental aspects or input policies, while city ranking systems
generally evaluate sustainability practice and therefore concern management aspects or
output. Furthermore, rating systems target limited buildings or new developments. By
39 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

contrast, ranking systems can evaluate urban achievements. A discussion of the major
critiques of these systems in this study identifies the gaps in these systems. The outcome
of this part is presented in a table of suggested indicators of rating and ranking systems,
and additionally shows which indicators have been adopted in the most known rating
systems and which indicators have not. It illustrates that while the general environmental
aspects of sustainability especially site, air, water, energy, and transportation are
commonly included in most of these systems, the indicators addressing sustainable
economy and social justice are less common. A list of suggested indicators, a
combination of rating systems targeting all aspects of sustainable cities initiatives and its
indicators, ranking systems’ criteria, and sustainable city programs, are addressed in this
study.
II.1: Why is Sustainability an Emergency?
Increasing environmental problems and pollution have led to a growing interest in
green buildings. In countries around the world, professionals are increasingly looking to
controlling urban laws, developing building energy codes, and environmental rating
systems as ways to promote and require green construction.
As the 21st century begins, scarce natural resources, growing populations and
concerns about pollution are forcing cities to examine their environmental
agendas. Municipal governments are considering air emissions, water use, solid
waste management, recycling rates, land use, and overall environmental quality
when setting their goals for the future. Increasingly, the goals reflect not only the
maintenance and improvement of the existing environment, but also a concern
41 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

with the livability and long-term sustainability of the urban area. (Shane &
Graedel, 2000, p. 643)
While the principles of sustainable development maybe similar across
the world, different contexts ask for a more dedicated approach to address the
environmental conditions in order to have a better concept of sustainable building and
community design.
In order to define a sustainable assessment system, a clear definition of
sustainability is required. Sustainability is based on a balance between three arenas:
economy, society, and environment. If one of these pillars is removed, the others will
collapse as well. Most green rating systems address environmental issues and assessing
economic and social aspects of sustainability seems much more complicated.
Nevertheless, environmental issues, because of the immediate threat of global warming,
increasingly influence policy strategies. Consequently, the most common environmental
codes, rating systems, and regulations in building and construction are more concerned
with the energy usage and installation of new technologies rather than with social and
economic aspects. Table 1 relates the aspects of built environment and their impacts on
sustainable development by sector.
King and King (2005) explain the differences between green building and
sustainable development. “Green building focuses on facilities,” while “sustainable
construction includes green building practices but comprises broader principles” (p. 404).
On the other hand, green building is about the building output but sustainable
construction covers input and output. King and King also mentioned that some
definitions consider social justice incorporated to sustainable construction.
40 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Regardless of changes such as technological improvements, the main and
common goal of sustainable buildings and communities remains to reduce “the overall
impact of the built environment on human health and the natural environment by:
 Efficiently using energy, water, and other resources
 Protecting occupant health and improving employee productivity
 Reducing waste, pollution and environmental degradation” (EPA, 2010a, para.2).
ASHRAE (the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers) defines green design as “…one that is aware of and respects nature and the
natural order of things; it is a design that minimizes the negative human impacts on the
natural surroundings, materials, resources, and processes that prevail in nature”
(Grumman, 2003, p. 3).
Table 1
Impacts of the Built Environment
Aspects of Built
Environment
Consumption
Environmental
Effects
Ultimate Effects
Siting

Design

Construction

Operation

Maintenance

Renovation

Deconstruction
Energy

Water

Materials

Natural
Resources
Waste
Air pollution

Water pollution

Indoor pollution

Heat islands

Stormwater runoff

Noise

Light pollution
Harm to human health

Environment degradation

Loss of resources
Note. Reprinted from Basic information: Definition of green building, by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2010. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm.
42 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Figure 2 illustrates U.S. Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
) emission from energy
consumption by sector, 1949-2009. CO
2
emissions from the industrial sector in the U.S.
have decreased, and it could be concluded that policies in this sector have begun to
control it; however, environmental policies in the building sector are not yet as serious.
Kontokosta has indicated the importance role of policies:
Policy strategies can have an important role towards sustainable development.
In the U.S., buildings have become the focus of energy efficiency and carbon
reduction strategies, particularly because energy efficiency measures in buildings
can result in a positive ‘‘double bottom line’’ outcome by reducing carbon and
adding value to the underlying real estate asset. (Kontokosta, 2012, p. 69)

Figure 2. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Consumption by Sector, 1949-
2011. Data adapted from U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011, Retrieved from
www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/#environment.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide
Building Industrial Transportation
43 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Figure 3, which shows the changes in energy intensity from 1985 to 2004 for
four sectors: transportation, industrial, residential buildings, and commercial buildings is
a reasonable evident for the same conclusion.
In this case, the commercial buildings sector has increased its energy intensity by
12%, and the energy intensity in the residential sector has declined by about 9%.
The decline in energy intensity was greatest in the industrial sector, falling by
19% over the 19-year period. During the same period, the energy intensity of the
transportation sector declined by 14%. (U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2012, para.5)

Figure 3. Indicators of Energy Intensity for four End-use Sectors in the U.S. 1985-2004.
Data adapted from U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012, Retrieved from
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/eii_total_energy.html.
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Index (1985 = 1.0)
Transportation Industrial Residential Commercial
44 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Figure 4 shows energy-use trends in the U.S. residential buildings. Between 1985
and 2004, the energy use of residential building per square feet decreased by 9%. There
might be many reasons for this drop off. For example, the residential energy price
(nominal dollars per million Btu) from 1970 to 2009 increased 10 times ($2.10 in 1970
and $ 22.13 in 2009) (DOE/EIA, 2011). “The increased efficiency of consumer
appliances and recent regional building trends” (Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
2009, p. 14) could be part of the reasons. Figure 4, on the contrary, shows that the total
amount of energy consumed (34%), the number of households (27.5%), and the size of
residences (19%) have all increased in this period. Meanwhile the number of people per
household has decreased by 4%.

Figure 4. Energy Use, Activity, Intensity and Other Factors in the Residential Sector
1985-2004. U.S. Department of Energy, 2008. Trends Data [Residential Buildings
Sector], Retrieved from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/eii_trend_data.html
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Index(1985=1.0)
Energy Use Total Households Housing Size
Intensity (per SF) population/household Energy use/person
45 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Therefore, even though improvements to energy efficiency have led to a decrease
for energy used per square foot of residential buildings, the energy use per person has
increased 10%. This resulted in a 34% increase in total energy consumed during this
period (U.S. Department of Energy, 2008).
Data for commercial buildings (Figure 5) show that energy use per square foot
and energy consumption have generally increased from 1985 to 2004, 11% and 50%
respectively. Other data indicates that from 2000 to 2010 energy consumption has
increased only 6% overall, reflective of more stable growth in the last decade (U.S.
Department of Energy, 2012).

Figure 5. Commercial Energy Use, Activity, Weather, and Intensity 1985-2004 U.S.
Department of Energy, 2008. Trends Data [Commercial Buildings Sector], Retrieved
from www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/eii_trend_data.html.
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Index (1985 = 1.0)
Energy Consumption Floorspace Intensity Index (weather -adjusted) Weather Factor
46 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

II.2: The Importance of Sustainable Rating Systems
Sustainable solutions were not a serious consideration in development until the
world was rocked by the 1970s world energy crisis. Kibert (2004) explains that this crisis
was the root of the first U.S. movement in green building that targeted energy efficiency.
The second movement, however had a more complex focus: the built environment’s
global impact. This second movement started after 1990s (pp. 497- 498). The term
Sustainable Development was proposed for the first time in the United Nations World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) report Our Common Future.
The term was defined, as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (NGO
Committee on Education, 1987, para.1). To address the lack of efficient and
comprehensive sustainable codes, sustainable rating systems were designed to establish a
definition for sustainable buildings and an appropriate metric for it. These rating systems
have been revised and expanded over time to include more aspects of sustainability.
“The green building movement in the U.S. has a well-deserved reputation for being the
most successful component of the modern environmental movement” (Kibert & Kibert,
2008, p. 22). While sustainability has a very broad meaning, these initial rating systems
aimed to examine and assess a building’s environmental features and/or operational
performance or expected performance of a building compared to other buildings or the
proposed baseline (Fowler & Rauch, 2006). While the majority of rating systems takes a
holistic approach to building or community performance, some consider only intended
aspects which are easier to be achieved and evaluated. Kats et al. (2003) in a report for
the Californian Sustainable Building Task Force examined 33 LEED certified buildings.
47 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

They concluded that the average green building construction cost is 2% more than
conventional building construction, an increase of “about $4/ft
2
in California” (p. 84)
and in addition to other benefits will “result in life cycle savings of 20% of total
construction costs” (p. ii). Rating systems help users with goal setting and decision-
making, which encourages owners and occupants to work together. They may
simultaneously offer suggestions on how to incorporate additional green elements into
the building by developing flexible criteria.
Even though green building codes and building rating systems may follow the
same goals, they have different structure. The rating systems have not been designed as
building codes although they can be adopted as a code need by modification. Table 2
compares a rating system against codes and standards.
Table 2
Comparing Green Building Rating Systems, Building Codes, and Building Standards
Rating Systems Codes Standards
Inspirational & elective criteria It’s the building Code Set or defines stakeholder based
practices & metrics
Define achievement though rating The “LAW” for licenses
Architect & Engineers
Referenced in other codes and
rating systems
Flexible Little flexibility No enforcement
Uses third party reviews or self-
certification
Permits required No inspection
Independent & credible Legislation Piece of fact
Intentionally hard to change
Interpreted by local code
officials

Note. Reprinted from International Code Council, by USGBC, ICC, ASHRAE, and AIA,
2011, Retrieved May 22, 2012 from media.iccsafe.org/IGCC/GreenBuildingCodes101-
flash/Green%20Building%20Codes%20101/player.html
48 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

One of the most significant concerns is that the most rating systems are national or even
international in assessment, while sustainability has many local concerns. Although
nature has a common overall sense of life on Earth, local conditions make this sense
completely different in details. The local codes are useful in a citywide scale, while
designing local rating systems could not be an easy task in a local scale management.
II.3: History of Sustainable Assessment Systems in the U.S.
Green rating systems have a very short history in the world and in the U.S. The
1970’s energy crisis spurred government funded research opportunities for forward-
thinking architects, environmentalists, and engineers to study technological solutions and
passive energy efficiency systems. Energy conservation for buildings was the first
answer to the environmental problems. Other aspects of sustainability gradually gained
attention. The world’s first environment certification system was BREEAM (Building
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), which was created in 1988
in the United Kingdom by the Building Research Establishment (BRE), and was
subsequently launched in 1990. Almost two decades later, several mandatory and
voluntary rating systems, products, and technologies are now accessible around the
world. Tim Psomas, the ISI's Board Chairman, reported that when they were designing
Envision rating system in 2011, more than 900 different rating systems for infrastructure
were identified across the world (Neimeyer, 2011). The following summarized history of
developing rating systems in the U.S. illustrates this fact.
 In 1973, the American Institute of Architects Energy Committee (AIA/COTE)
was founded. The committee focus was energy efficient building and after preparing
49 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

several researches on the subject, the committee convinced the Carter campaign to
develop the research results as energy codes.
 In 1977, The Carter administration established the U.S. Department of Energy
responsible for energy usage and conservation.
 In 1990, the AIA/COTE became involved in aspects of sustainability other than
simply the energy efficiency.
 In 1993, President Clinton asked AIA/COTE to work on greening. Many of those
who involved in that project formed the core of the USGBC.
 In 1993, U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) as a coalition of different
building-related organizations and especially architects from the AIA was formed.
 In 1996, the Canadian version of BREEAM was published regarding existing
buildings. This tool was developed for Canada and named Green Globes.
 In 1998, the first version of LEED 1.0 approved by USGIC for New Construction
(LEED-NC) was piloted based on the BREEAM system.
 In 2000, version 2.0 of LEED was publicly launched.
 In 2002, Green Globes for existing buildings was offered online in the United
Kingdom.
 In 2003, the LEED version 2.0 was used publicly for the first time.
 In 2005, the Green Building Initiative (GBI) distributed The U.S. Green Globe
version by adoption from the Canadian version and BREEAM.

51 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

II.4: Process of Assessment
Most assessment certification systems ask for third party inspections and/or
provide third-party verification. They verify that:
A building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at
improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings,
water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental
quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts. (USGBC
Central Ohio, para.1)
Fulfillment of rating systems certification requires responding to a minimum
number of criteria that are effective on many aspects of a project (Northbridge
Environmental Management Consultants, 2003).
The common steps of certification are project registration, plan review,
consultation, determination of materials and methods, walk-through and periodic on-site
inspections during construction, performance testing, and certification. In order to earn a
certification, the project must meet all prerequisites. The must be designed consistent
with the rating system, and earn the minimum number of credits/points. Projects may
meet the certification requirements and earn extra points for a higher level of certification
in some of the rating systems. The best time to initiate an assessment system is from the
site selection and beginning of schematic design, however if the project has already met
the site prerequisites, and follows the design requirements, it will be possible to seek for
certification in the construction period.

50 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

II.5: Finding the Appropriate Scale for Sustainability
Developing a rating system for new or existing communities or cities is more
complicated than developing these systems for buildings. The reason is that many new
factors may affect the community sustainability, which could be ignored in building
rating systems. Shane and Graedel (2000) indicate that despite different environmental
programs, less likely these programs are comprehensive.
Many urban areas today set environmental goals based on local, regional or
national standards or guidelines. Such measures are very useful for establishing
waste reduction, pollution prevention and land use programs, but often fall short
of defining a comprehensive, long-range plan for a quality living environment.
An ideal situation would be to have a standard set of environmental sustainability
measures designed for urban areas. These measures would set specific goals for
major environmental sectors, such as air quality, water quality, livability and
energy use. They would provide both a scale upon which to weigh the
environmental ‘efficiency’ of a metropolitan area and a target toward which the
city could focus its long-term environmental efforts. Due to the enormous variety
among cities with different geographies, cultures and histories, it is a considerable
challenge to establish a useful set of sustainability metrics. (pp. 643-644)
Assessing these new factors is more complicated than identifying them. A
sustainable community is dynamic and therefore it might be affected by many outer
elements. Designing and considering the city like a large building is one of the mistakes
that modern urbanism made, and zoning theory was its outcome. Designing a rating
system for a city without considering its dynamics and adoption of a building rating
52 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

system for the city may cause the same problem. Based on his survey of the U.S. cities
which practice sustainability, Portney states that “cities that take sustainability seriously
typically engage in a wide variety of activities that attempt to directly improve or protect
the environment, and that try to do this indirectly through influencing energy
consumption” (Portney, 2003, p. 99). The author notes that even these best practice cities
fall far short of meaningful and sustained public involvement and social justice.
It would be possible to imagine a sustainable effort that does not include special
attention to issues of equity and justice and most cities have not addressed issues
of social justice and environmental equity in their sustainability initiatives. Even
the cities that have elected to incorporate equity considerations into their
sustainability initiatives have done so in only a specific way… The measures of
income inequality, of different health of at-risk populations, and of law
enforcement outcomes represents a good start, but do not capture the essence of
environmental or social justice. (p. 175)
Bell and Morse argue that since indicators of sustainability have been widely
employed by biologists, they had not incorporated other dimensions, including quality of
life (2008, p. 28). The idea of sustainable cities is becoming a global concern; however,
the appropriate scale to be used to measure community sustainability is not yet cleared.
LEED for Neighborhood Development in response to the minimum or maximum sizes of
projects to achieve certification stated that “there is no minimum or maximum size,
though the rating system has been designed to function well for at least 2 buildings and
up to 320 acres” (LEED-ND, 2010, p. 1). McManus (2004) argues that sustainability is a
relative subject depending on context, culture, economy, and political concern (p. 84).
53 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

II.6: The Most Common Assessment Systems in the U.S.
1: National rating systems.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). LEED is the most
U.S. known rating system for green construction created by the USGBC. The system
was launched in 1994 with a set of standards for new commercial buildings, and
gradually it has been advanced and expanded. It started with version v.1. Version v2.0
was the first in use version followed by version v2.1, and v.2.2. The last version, 2009,
employs a 100-point system with an additional 10 more bonus credit four of them which
address regional priority, and the remaining six devoted to innovation in design.
Prerequisites are required for all projects; other credits are voluntary as far as a project
can earn a minimum number of points for certification. Those that exceed certification
credits may receive Silver, Gold, or Platinum recognition. LEED sets nine different
rating systems. They are divided into New Construction (NC), Existing Buildings (EB),
Commercial Interiors (CI), Core Shell (CS), Retail, Schools, Homes, Neighborhood
Development (ND), and Healthcare. Figure 6 illustrates different versions refining and
expansion over time.
In addition to the United States, USGBC has councils in Canada (Canada Green
Building Council CaGBC), India (IGBC), and Cuba for LEED certification. LEED 2012
is the next version (USGBC: LEED rating systems). By September 2011, LEED had
more than 20,000 members, more than 22,000 certified projects (Brooks, 2011a), and by
May 2013 more than 2 billion square foot of 15,000 nonresidential certified buildings,
and more than 75,000 residential and nonresidential projects around the world (USGBC ,
54 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

2013). LEED has outreached other countries, with 40 percent of registered projects in
130 countries other than the United States by the end of 2012 (Yudelson, 2013).

Figure 6. Development of LEED rating systems 1998-2010. Data adopted from and by
the U.S. Green Building Council, Retrieved from www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems
Green Building Initiative's (GBI) Green Globes. Green Globes is a web-based
rating system for buildings from 2000, designed based on BREEAM for the North
America. “Green Globes was developed by the Oregon-based Green Building Initiative
and positions itself as a more economical, practical and convenient alternative to LEED”
(Carsman & Kim, 2009, para.7). In contrast to LEED, it has only two versions,
Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) and New Construction (NC). In
2005, ANSI (American National Standards Institute) accredited GBI as a standards
developer. Green Globes is a 1000-point scale, and provides immediate online feedback
based on submitted information for determining and evaluation a project potential.
Unlike LEED, GBI has no prerequisites and the certification cost is about half that of
LEED (Carsman & Kim, 2009). The Green Globes certification has four levels: One,
1 New Construction
2 Existing Buildings
3 Commercial Interiors
4 Core and Shell
5 School
6 Retail
7 Healthcare
8 Home
9 Neighborhood Development
LEED for:
2009 1998 2010 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1999 2000 2001 2002
Initial version
Market version
Pilot version
55 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Two, Three, or Four Globes according to achieved points (see Figure 7) (Green Building
Initiative, 2013a).

Figure 7. Green Globes ratings scale. Reprinted from Green Building Initiative.
Retrieved from www.thegbi.org/green-globes/. Copyright 2013 by the Green Building
Initiative.
Living Building Challenge. The Living Building Challenge was launched by the
Cascadia Region Green Building Council (a chapter of the USGBC and CaGB Council)
in 2006. In 2009, the International Living Building Institute (ILBI) was formed with the
goal of promoting green living all around the world. It has active programs in the United
States, Canada, Ireland, and Mexico (International Living Future Institute). Living
Building’s certification is based on building performance after occupancy rather than a
prediction based on modeling, and therefore the certification is granted only after
reviewing one full year of occupancy data. It has versions for renovation, landscape or
infrastructure (non-conditioned development), building, and neighborhood projects.
The main difference between the Living Building Challenge and LEED is that in
addition to five common categories (site, water, energy, health, and materials), the Living
56 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Building Challenge has two new categories: equity and beauty (Brooks, 2011b). Brooks
indicates that “the Living Building Challenge is not only a framework that utilizes the
most advanced metrics for validating the sustainability of the built environment, but also
an advocacy tool for promoting a symbiotic relationship between people and the built
environment” (para.3). Besides it is more restricted on common categories; for example,
the certification asks for only on-site renewable energy sources and only on-site water
collected (Brooks, 2011a).
Energy Star. Energy Star was established in 1992 by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as a voluntary energy star consumption labeling for energy-
efficient products. It was initially used mainly by computer companies. By 1995, more
office equipment products and residential heating and cooling were added to the Energy
Star labeling. Energy Star has been partnered with more than 20,000 public and private
companies and more than 35 product categories use this labeling. Energy Star provides
strategies for energy management, commercial building design, green buildings, and
energy efficiency. Energy Star certifies buildings as a whole when a building achieves
75 percent of the EPA energy performance rating system (Energy Star).
Enterprise Green Communities. In 2004, Enterprise Community Partners
developed the first rating system especially designed for affordable houses named
Enterprise Green Communities. Enterprise Community Partners was founded in 1982,
and is a nonprofit organization dedicated to financial and expertise support for affordable
housing. Enterprise Green Communities offers certification for single-family, low-rise
multifamily, mid/ high-rise multifamily, new construction, moderate rehabilitation, and
substantial rehabilitation. Projects certification requires meeting mandatory criteria
57 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

specific to construction type and a minimum of 35 additional optional points for new
construction and 30 additional optional points for rehabilitation projects.
Enterprise offers grants, loans, tax-credit equity, training, and technical assistance
to enable the creation of affordable houses which achieve green communities
certification. More than half of Enterprise Community projects have been certified
(About green communities).
Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS). Similar to Enterprise
Green Communities, CHPS is dedicated specifically to a group of buildings, it is the first
rating system designed for K-12 schools. In 1999, after a meeting of California Energy
Commission regarding the energy performance of California’s schools, the outcome was
CHPS. The CHPS rating system was published in 2002 as a California state certification
and now works at the national level. CHPS Designed and CHPS Verified are two
recognitions that CHPS provides. CHPS Designed is a self-certification using the free
CHPS program. CHPS Verified is a third-party verification (CHPS).
Environments For Living. Launched in 2001 by Masco Home Services, Inc.,
Environments for Living provides services to builders of green homes. The program has
two levels of certification: 1) the Environments For Living program and 2) the
Environments For Living Certified Green program. The Environment for Living
Certified Green program, the second one, in addition to the Environments For Living
program requirements of energy efficiency, durability, and indoor environmental quality;
requires indoor water efficiency and lighting efficiency. Masco is a building products
manufacturer mostly for kitchen and bath cabinetry, shelving, bath accessories and
58 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

windows; however, the certification does not ask for using any specific manufacture
products including Masco products (Environments For Living).
Envision. In 2011, the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) developed a
rating system for infrastructures, named Envision. The American Council of Engineering
Companies (ACEC), the American Public Works Association (APWA), and the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) are founder of ISI. The rating system
covers all infrastructure developments in the areas of energy, water, transportation,
landscaping, information, and waste. The ISI claims that none of the existing rating
systems has a holistic approach like Envision; rather existing rating systems are region or
sector specific. Furthermore, the building rating systems that recently have gained
popularity are unable to assess infrastructure projects; since the health and comfort of
people are core of these systems, while most infrastructure projects are unoccupied. In
addition, buildings in most cases have one owner, which makes these projects less
challenging than infrastructure projects. The Envision rating system consists of 60
credits in five categories including quality of life, leadership, resource allocation, natural
world, climate and risk. There are extra points for innovation. The certification began in
2012 and it has four levels of recognition: Bronze (20 points), Silver (30 points), Gold
(40 points), and Platinum (50 points) (Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure).
2: Local rating systems
GreenPoints Rated Homes. Formed in 2003 as a partnership of Alameda County
waste agencies and Build It Green, GreenPoints Rated has a similar approach like LEED
but is focused on residential building. There are two versions: existing homes and new
homes and each version has guidelines for single-family and multifamily buildings.
59 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

GreenPoints Rated uses points to evaluate and label homes. Build It Green claims that
this label not only “is the mark of quality for green home” but “can improve property
values at time of sale” (para.2) as well. Categories in this rating system are energy
efficiency, resource conservation, indoor air quality, water conservation, and community
livability. Certified raters can go through a rating process. The administration fee by
Build it Green is $200 for single-family homes and $500 for multifamily (Build It
Green). Several cities in California have developed their own local rating system based
on GreenPoints Rated such as the City of West Hollywood, and Sonoma County Waste
Management Agency (Brown, 2010, p. 4).
California Green Builder. In 2005, the Building Industry Institute published the
California Green Builder Program. It is not a model rating system, but like Living
Buildings Challenge, certification is based on actual building performance (California
Green Builder). “This is a program for a production home builder who builds at least 85
homes a year or builds subdivisions with master plan approval for their building permits”
(Build It Green, 2008, p. 10).
II.7: Categories and Indicators of Rating Systems for Buildings
Both categories of assessment and the waiting vary between rating systems
according to the definition of sustainability established and the priorities set. The
categories consist of requirements for the process of site selection through the building’s
environmental performance, generally centering on energy consumption, efficient use of
water resources, and indoor air quality. Building rating system indicators are commonly
environmental sustainability essentials such as energy consumption; site ecology; water
61 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

consumption; pollution; material/product inputs; indoor air quality; occupant comfort;
and transportation.
Most of the rating systems have both prerequisite and optional criteria. While
required criteria in some systems have no points, all optional characters are worth one or
more points. Certification is based on meeting the prerequisites and obtaining a
minimum of optional points.
Some of rating systems have been modified over time. Figure 8 shows the change
of categories in different LEED versions for New Construction. It shows that while some
indicators have been merged (location and site sustainability), some have been removed
(awareness and education), some new categories have been added (regional priorities),
and some categories have a lower or higher percentage share.

Figure 8. Comparison between Percentages of Total Possible Points in Four LEED
Versions for New Construction. Data adopted from and by the U.S. Green Building
Council, Retrieved from www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/new-construction
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
percent of Total Possible Points
LEED 1.11a LEED 1.72 LEED 2.2 LEED2009
60 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

In the current version of LEED for New Construction (LEED 2009), the
percentage for energy and atmosphere has been increased while the percentage for
materials and resources has been decreased. USGBC explains that these changes are
justified by new technology and urgent priorities (USGBC, 2011a). Furthermore, there
have been several changes to prerequisites; for example, there were new requirements for
20% water use reduction, minimum indoor air quality performance, and minimum energy
performance added to LEED 2009 based on ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007 (USGBC,
2010). The new version of LEED, LEED v4, was proposed by USGBC, opened to public
comments, and expected to be released in 2014.
Different rating systems have developed single and multiple systems for different
built environments. LEED has developed versions for new construction, commercial
interior, existing buildings, core and shell, schools, and neighborhood development.
Green Globe has developed only two versions, one for new construction, and one for
existing buildings. Energy Star evaluates product categories. The mission of Enterprise
Green Communities is to develop program for affordable houses. Collaborative for High
Performance Schools (CHPS) assists the design, construction and operation of K-12
schools. Environments for Living Certified Green program, is designed only for homes,
and finally BREEAM’s versions are for courts, education, industrial, healthcare, offices,
retail, prisons, multi-residential, and data centers.
Figure 9 compares new construction indicators in three main and initial rating
systems (BREEAM, LEED, and Green Globe).
62 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Figure 9. Comparing technical contents in LEED, Green Globes, and BREEAM for New
Construction
Table 3 illustrates the different level of rating in these three systems. Both LEED
and Green Globes grew out of the BREEAM, the first designated rating system in the
world (Smith, Fischlein, Suh, & Huelman, 2006).
Table 3
Different Levels of Rating in LEED, Green Globes, and BREEAM for New Construction
BREEAM LEED GBI
Rating % Score Rating % Score Rating % Score
Pass ≥30 Certified ≥40 1 Globes ≥35
Good ≥45 Silver ≥50 2 Globes ≥55
Very Good ≥ 55 Gold ≥60 3 Globes ≥70
Excellent ≥ 70 Platinum ≥80 4 Globes ≥85
Outstanding ≥ 85
24%
9%
32%
13%
14%
5%
4%
12%
10%
36%
10%
20%
8%
5%
10%
8%
6%
19%
13%
8%
10%
15%
10%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
LEED 2009 Green Globes BREEAM
63 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

BREEAM was launched in 1990 and is the most widely used assessment method
outside of the U.S. More than 250,000 buildings are certified by BREEAM (BRE
Global, 2013), while LEED, the most famous system in the U.S. has not certified 10% of
this amount. These three rating systems are compared below:
 The three systems have many similarities. They are a “measurement tool not a
design tool” (Inbuilt , 2010, p. 17), have a point base, are almost similar in criteria (on
energy, environmental impacts, air quality, and durability), and have multiple levels of
certification (Kubba, 2010). “It is estimated that nearly 80% of available points in the
Green Globes system are addressed in LEED 2.2 and that over 85% of the points
specified in LEED 2.2 are addressed in the Green Globes system” (Smith, Fischlein,
Suh, & Huelman, 2006, p. 3). In the UK context, only 16 LEED points have not been
addressed in BREEAM and 34% of BREEAM points have not been covered by LEED
(Inbuilt , 2010).
 The Green Globes emphasis is energy efficiency, while LEED highlights
materials. These differences were more dramatic in earlier version on LEED (Kubba,
2010). LEED additionally certifies some materials and recognizes only Forest
Stewardship Council woods (Solomon, 2005)
 BREEAM and Green Globe are more locally adaptable than LEED; BREEAM
has developed version for different world regions. As an example, BREEAM for Middle
Eastern countries (Table 4) has more emphasis on water efficiency and for the European
version more emphasis on energy efficiency (Bardaglio, 2009). LEED in its last version
2009 has adopted 4 points out of 100 for the Regional Properties.
64 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

 Prerequisites in LEED “such as energy use, erosion control, and indoor air
quality” are mandatory for certification and earn no points in this rating system while
these categories earn points in Green Globe system (Smith, Fischlein, Suh, & Huelman,
2006, p. 4).
 Projects in GBI system are assessed based on percent of applicable points, while
in LEED criteria are same for all projects if they are applicable or not (Kubba, 2010).
 GBI and BREEAM assign points for management while LEED EB does not have
this category. In contrast, LEED rates points for regional priority while two other
systems do not rate projects for this mean.
 GBI is more cost effective for small and mid-sized projects while LEED is more
appropriate for large-sized projects (Rekow & Stover, 2009).
Table 4
BREEAM Weightings in Europe and Middle Eastern Countries
Category BREEAM: Europe BREEAM: Gulf
Management 12% 8%
Health & Wellbeing 15% 15%
Energy 19% 13%
Transport 8% 6%
Water 6% 30%
Materials 12.50% 9%
Waste 7.50% 5%
Land Use & Ecology 10% 7%
Pollution 10% 7%
Note. Reprinted from breglobal, by A. Aubree, 2008, Retrieved July 10, 2012 from
http://www.cablejoints.co.uk/upload/Introduction_to_BREEAM.pdf
65 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

 The cost of certification in different rating systems is an important factor. “In
comparison to other rating programs, LEED is expensive. Some estimate that the entire
process, from project planning through certification, costs between one and five percent
of the overall project cost” (Carsman & Kim, 2009, para.6). Green Globes has a flat
registration fee $5,000 to $7,000 that they note is almost 3 times less than the cost of
LEED certification (Green Building Initiative, 2013b).
 GBI is more efficient for existing buildings, while LEED is designed more for
new construction.
 LEED has developed different rating systems for different building types, while
GBI has developed only two systems for existing buildings and new construction and
recently has added healthcare rating system.
 GBI is more users friendly and offers 30 days of free trial to seek the possibility
of obtaining certification for a specific project before registering it. The entire
assessment process is available online, and has “links to energy modeling and LCA (Life
Cycle Assessment) software tools” (Solomon, 2005, p. 5). Even though LEED now has
an online system,” it remains more extensive and requires expert knowledge in various
areas.” GBI’s self-assessment web-based tool provides the opportunity to any team
members, not just specialized consultant, to complete the assessment (Kubba, 2010, p.
44).
 None of the rating the systems provide ongoing monitoring after certification
(Kubba, 2010, p. 88).

66 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

II.8: The Most Common Rating and Ranking Systems for Urban Scale
in the U.S.
Portney City Ranking. Portney (2003) in his book Taking Sustainable Cities
Seriously ranked U.S. cities based on 34 elements. In order to rank cities, Porteny
studied that whether each city had engaged in any specific sustainability programs,
policies, or associated activities. Each city earns one point for its involvement in each
related program or policy (see table below).
Table 5
Indicators in Portney City Ranking
Indicators Points
1 Sustainable indicators projects 3
2 Smart growth activities 4
3 Land use planning programs, policies, and zoning 3
4 Transportation planning programs and policies 5
5 Pollution prevention and reduction efforts 8
6 Energy and resources conservation/efficiency initiatives 5
7 Organization/administration/management/coordination/governance 6
total possible points 34
Note. Data adapted from Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously, by K. E. Portney, 2003,
Cambridge: MIT Press. Copyright 2003 by Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Popular Science City (POPSCI) Ranking. In 2008, Elizabeth Svoboda designed
a simple system for ranking green cities. Using this ranking system, she evaluates and
ranks the fifty greenest cities in the U.S. based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and
the National Geographic Society’s Green Guide. The rating system has four measuring
67 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

factors: electricity and transportation (each 10 points), green living, and recycling (each 5
points) (Svoboda, 2008).
Smarter Cities Ranking. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRC) in the
Smarter Cities website has ranked sustainable cities in the U.S. likewise. As the first
step, it has divided cities based on their population into three groups: large (250,000 or
more in population), medium (100,000 to 249,999), and small (50,000 to 99,999 in
population). The data source in this ranking is from the EPA, the U.S. Census and other
wide-ranging datasets. Table 6 shows the Smarter Cities’ criteria and point system. As a
whole, the Smarter Cities has weighed most of the environmental factors and under the
Standard of Living indicator has included environmental justice (Natural Resources
Defense Council).
Table 6
NRDC Ranking Criteria and Points
Indicators Points Sub- Indicators Points
1 Air Quality 10
median AQI 7
100% smokefree workplaces 1
100% smokefree restaurants 1
100% smokefree workplaces 1
2
Energy
Production &
Conservation
10
Top three fuels used for power generation 6
Energy conservation incentives offered 2
Green power offered by utility 2
3
Environmental
Standards &
Participation
10
Number of city department that have environmental standards
incorporated into their policies
7
provision of environmental commissions on which citizens
may served
3

68 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 6, Continued
Indicators Points Sub- Indicators Points
4 Green Building 10
Number of total LEED-certified buildings 4
Number of LEED-platinum buildings 1
Number of Energy Star-rated buildings 2
An alternative green building certification system 1
Sprawl reduction strategies 2
5 Green Space 10
Total number of different types of green space 6.5
Presence of an integrated pest management plan 1
Percentage of land that is green space 2.5
6 innovation 5
Innovative policies or practices with supporting
documentation
5

7 Recycling 9
Total items included in recycling program 3
Total items picked up by recycling program 3
Public recycling bins 1
8
Standard of
Living
10
Percentage of owner-occupied housing 2
Families living below the poverty line 2
Median household income 2
Housing Opportunity Index 4
9 Transportation 10
Number of green commuting options for citizens 8
Documented ridership for public transportation 2
10
Water Quality &
Conservation
10
Health-based violations 3
Reporting-based violations 3
Water-conservation incentives 4
Total points 94

Note. Data adopted from Smarter Cities, by Natural Resources Defense Council,
Retrieved July 10, 2010 from http://smartercities.nrdc.org/rankings/scoring-criteria
LEED for Neighborhood Development (ND). In 2007, USGBC released a
LEED pilot version at the neighborhood scale. Under the pilot version, 240 projects were
registered and 112 projects obtained pilot version certification in three stages: 13 on
Stage 3, 70 on Stage 2, and 29 on Stage 1. The market version was released in 2009.
69 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Unlike any other LEED for Neighborhood Development, developed in collaboration
with Congress for the New Urbanism and the Natural Resources Defense Council,
emphasizes elements that bring buildings and infrastructure together and relates the
neighborhood to its local and regional landscape. (USGBC, 2011b, para.6)
Enterprise Green Communities has developed its version for affordable houses
and its criteria for new compact development can be considered a community rating
system (see table below).
Table 7
Comparison between Technical Contents in LEED for ND and Green Communities

LEED for ND Point % Green Communities Point %
1 Smart Location and Linkage 27 25 Integrated Design 0 0
2
Neighborhood Pattern and
Design
44 40
Site, Location and
Neighborhood Fabric
36 30.3
3
Green Infrastructure and
Buildings
29 26 Site Improvements 7 5.9
4 Innovation and Design Process 6 5 Water Conservation 5 4.2
5 Regional Priority 4 4
Materials Beneficial to the
Environment
49 41.2
6 - - - Healthy Living Environment 22 18.5
7 - - - Operations and Maintenance 0 0.0
Maximum Possible points 110 100 Maximum Possible points 119 100
71 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Living Building Challenge for Neighborhood (LBCN). The Living Building
Challenge for Neighborhood (LBCN) distinguishes projects which consist of multiple
building in a community such as a campus, neighborhood, or small towns. Seven
principal areas represented by 20 requirements, called Petals are included in The Living
Building Challenge: site, water, energy, health (indoor quality), materials, equity, and
beauty (Table 8). Although most of the criteria are similar to other rating systems, equity
and beauty represent a very different approach. The LBCN tries “to raise the bar” for
sustainable communities. “Living Building Challenge projects have their own ‘utility,’
generating their own energy and processing their own waste. They more appropriately
match scale to technology and end use, and result in greater self-sufficiency and security”
(International Living Building Institute, 2009, p. 9).
Table 8
Living Building Challenge Indicators
Petal Site Water Energy Health Materials Equity Beauty
Imperatives
Limits to
Growth
Net Zero
Water
Net Zero
Energy
Civilized
Environment
Red List Human Scale
& Humane
Places
Beauty +
Spirit
Urban
Agriculture
Ecological
Water Flow
Healthy Air Embodied
Carbon
Footprint
Democracy &
Social Justice
Inspiration +
Education

Habitat
Exchange
Biophilia Responsible
Industry
Rights to
Nature

Car Free
Living
Appropriate
Sourcing

Conservation +
Reuse

Note. Data adapted from International Living Building institute, by J. F. McLennan & E.
Brukman, 2010, Retrieved from
http://oregonbest.org/sites/default/files/BESTFEST_10_Brukman.pdf
70 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

OSSPI. Opp and Saunders (2013) have developed an index for city ranking
considering three arenas of sustainability, environmental protection, sustainable
economic development, and social equity. The index contains 84 indicators and seven
sub-indexes consist of sustainable development, environmental policy, transportation
policy, pollution policy, energy policy, organized government venues, and social equity.
They have ranked top 50 cities per their index.
II.9: Criteria for Selecting Indicators and Appropriate Metrics
While there are several ranking and rating systems, still developing a metric set
that has systemic consistency is a significant challenge, a metric which while defines a
holistic and comprehensive framework, properly evaluates every factors (Shane &
Graedel, 2000). “The use of the term ‘metric’ implies a quantitative determination of the
value of a parameter of interest” (p. 645). Shane and Graedel state that metrics should
have six basic criteria:
1. The metrics had to rely on data that are currently collected by most urban
regions or that are easy to collect.
2. They had to focus on driving forces that define all relevant environmental
aspects of an urban region.
3. They had to be adaptable to future developments.
4. They had to be measured in universal (i.e., international) units.
5. They had to be simple and clearly phrased.
6. They had to provide a stringent target against which cities can gauge their
environmental progress. (Shane & Graedel, 2000, p. 644)
72 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Vos et al. have described the criteria of sustainable indicators as “genuine
measures of sustainability, comprehensive, applicable to the range of alternatives being
considered, meaningful and relevant to all stakeholders, relevant over time, Convenient to
use” (2005, p. 5662).
Shane and Graedel (2000) recognize ten categories for which urban metrics are
justified: “air, water, solids, transportation, energy, resource use, population, urban
ecology, livability, and general environmental management… These categories are
representative of three main components of cities: natural resources, infrastructure, and
people” (p. 645). Portney defines the main three components as the environment,
economic development, and social justice. In the environmental index, he describes three
main areas:
1-Water and air quality efforts such as hazardous waste reduction, industrial pollution
remediation, prevention, and reduction efforts, pollution reduction, eco-industrial parks,
superfund site remediation, brownfield redevelopment, and biodiversity
2- Energy use and conservation
3- Public transit and transportation planning
He defines elements of sustainable social justice as: distribution of income and
wealth, housing quality, employment opportunities, crime, health and wellbeing, and
access to a range of public services (Portney, 2003). Vos et al. argue that while there are
different sets of indicators in different projects scales, the common approach is a focus on
damage to ecosystems. They have developed seven categories of indicators adapted from
the related literature for the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP). The seven categories are
73 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

“social impacts, economic development, natural resource consumption, pollution, urban
ecology, system flexibility and adaptability, and institutional capacity” (2005, p. 5363).
Bell and Morse (2008) argue that sustainable indicators maybe grouped in
different ways based on the elements they aim to gauge. They name two kinds of
groupings of sustainable indicators. First is state, which designates a variable condition,
and second is pressure, which gauges a process that will change a variable state. They
mention the third type of grouping which is defined by United Nation (UN), as “gauges
required progress in the response of governments” (p. 29). Bell and Morse explain that
the UN sustainable indicators can be divided into four categories: social, economic,
environmental, and institutional aspects. As an example, they mention the city of
Norwich in UK, which developed a set of indicators for an urban center during mid-
1990s based on UN sustainable indicators model (Table 9).
As it was exemplified, different rating systems, not only may have different
criteria, they differently categorize their indicators. Some of them just stay with
environmental aspects of sustainability. For example, the POPSCI ranking has only four
measuring factors: electricity, transportation, green living (including green buildings and
green spaces), and recycling (Svoboda, 2008). The Smarter Cities ranking system,
besides environmental criteria such as air quality, energy production and conservation,
green building, water quality and conservation, green space, recycling, and
transportation; considers house availability and affordability, as well as citizen
participation in environmental initiatives. Portney and OSSPI categorize sustainable city
indicators to three famous Es: environment protection, economic development, and social
equity. While the Portney focus is environmental protection, OSSPI tries to evaluate
74 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

cities based on all three sustainability pillars equally. Shane and Graedel (2000) suggest
three main components natural resources, infrastructure, and people.
There is also discussion on the number of metrics in an index. Shane and Graedel
suggest a short list while covers all sectors of urbun sustainability and come up with a list
of 10 metrics. OSSPI list on the other hand consists of 84 metrics to result in a detailed
assessment. Wile Shane and Graedel have only one metric for recycling (solid), the
OSSPI ranking system has especifically 13 metrics regarding recycling.

Table 9
Norwich 21 Set of Sustainable Indicators
Environmental
Protection
Economical
Development
Social
Development
1 Clean Air 11 Less unemployment 16 Less poverty
2
Less Domestic
waste
12 More skilled people 17 Reduced housing problem
3 Saving water 13 More jobs 18 Improved local services
4 Saving energy 14 Regional capital for business 19
More people involved in local
democracy
5 Clean river water 15 More money from tourism 20 More sport facilities
6 More wildlife 21 A safer city
7
Protecting open
spaces

22 More arts and culture
8 Clean Streets 23 Maintaining of heritage
9 Less Traffic
10 Safer Streets

Note. Data adapted from Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?(p. 82),
by S. Bell & S. Morse, 2008, London: Earthscan. Second edition, Copyright 2008 Simon
Bell and Stephen Morse
75 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Considering many rating and ranking systems, this research has derived a general
index and categories for sustainable cities. The three main categories of this index are
natural environment and resources, human built environment, and people. Every main
category has subcategories. Natural environment and resources subcategories are: site,
urban ecology, air, water, energy, and other resources. The human built environment
subcategories are: construction and development, transportation and infrastructure,
recycling, and other industries. The people component subcategories are: equal justice
and environment management. The index consists of 70 indicators which are collected
from different rating systems as follows:
1. Natural Environment and Resources
a. Site
i. Conserve Natural Landscape and Features (such as wetland, water
Body, hill, virgin prairie, forest)
ii. Agricultural Land Conservation
iii. Floodplain Avoidance
iv. Brownfield Redevelopment
v. Infill Site Redevelopment
b. Urban Ecology
i. Conserve imperiled species and ecological communities
ii. Sustainable Landscaping
iii. Light Pollution Reduction
iv. Noise Pollution Reduction
v. Visual Comfort and Beauty
76 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

vi. Pest Management Plan
c. Air
i. Healthy Air and smokefree Workplaces/ Restaurants
ii. Embodied Carbon Footprint
iii. Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
d. Water
i. Building Water Efficiency
ii. Water-Efficient Landscaping
iii. Wastewater Management
e. Energy
i. Building Energy Efficiency
ii. On-Site Renewable Energy Sources
iii. District Heating and Cooling
iv. Infrastructure Energy Efficiency
f. Other Resources
i. Approximate and regional Economy Rooted Sourcing
ii. Materials Beneficial to the Environment
iii. Reuse Building Material
iv. Material's Red List
v. Local Food/farm Production
vi. Compost Facilities
2. Human Built Environment
a. Construction and Development
77 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

i. Compact Development
ii. Mixed-Use Neighborhood Centers
iii. Connected and Open Community
iv. Green Building
v. Existing Building Reuse
vi. Historic Resource Preservation and Adaptive Reuse
vii. Minimized Site Disturbance in Design and Construction
viii. Storm water Management
ix. Heat Island Reduction
x. Solar Orientation
b. Transportation and Infrastructure
i. Sustainable Infrastructure Facilities
ii. Housing and Jobs Proximity
iii. Walkable, Pedestrian-oriented Communities
iv. Reduced Parking Footprint
v. Street Network
vi. Public Transit Facilities
vii. Transportation Demand Management
viii. Access to Civic and Public Spaces
ix. Access to Recreation Facilities
x. Tree-Lined and Shaded Streets
xi. Bicycle network and Storage
xii. Neighborhood Schools
78 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

c. Other Industries
i. Responsible Industry
ii. Design for Environment (manufacturing sectors)
iii. Sustainable Agriculture
iv. Sustainable Forestry
v. Sustainable Fisheries
vi. Environment Preferable Services
vii. Integrated Materials Management
d. Recycling
i. Solid Waste Management Infrastructure
ii. Recycled Content in Infrastructure
3. People
a. Equal justice
i. Standard of Living and Wellbeing
ii. Population Capacity
iii. Employment Opportunity
iv. Mixed-income Diverse Communities
v. Mixed-dwelling Units
vi. Affordable Housing
vii. Equal Facilities and Access
viii. Crime Control
b. Institutional Management
i. Education and Inspiration
79 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

ii. Community Outreach and Involvement
iii. Evolve human-nature Relationships
iv. Green Jobs
Table 10 compares this index with four rating/ranking systems: LEED ND, Living
Building Challenge, NRDC, and Green Communities. As noted previously, some
indicators are common to these systems such as: conservation of natural landscape and
features; floodplain avoidance; conservation of imperiled species and ecological
communities; preserving healthy air; enhancing water and energy efficiency, use of on-
site renewable energy sources; promoting compact development; designing connected
and open communities; efficient storm water management; creating walkable and
pedestrian-oriented communities; providing public transit facilities; promoting mixed-
dwelling and a diversity of homes and uses; and promoting education and inspiration.
The general environmental aspects of sustainability especially site, air, water, energy, and
transportation have been considered in most of these systems; however, the indicators
which address sustainable economy and social justice have been considered to a lesser
extent. As Opp and Saunders state, “while a great deal is known about environmental
initiatives at the local level, comparatively little is known about social equity and
sustainable economic development as it relates to the global quest for sustainability”
(2013, p. 18).

81 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 10
Comparison between Sustainable City Indicators in LEED ND, Living Building
Challenge, NRDC, and Green Communities

80 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

II.10: The Most Recent Critiques about Common Rating Systems
Considering all positive effects that rating systems have had on defining
sustainability, a question remains. Should these systems be developed or there do we
need more restricted, mandatory codes and policies for sustainability such as CALGreen.
The most common critiques of rating systems conclude that they are time-
consuming, expensive, and have insufficient technical resources. Other criticisms are
that most tools address only environmental aspects of sustainability, and that they do not
cover social, economic, or cultural aspects in their assessment scheme. Furthermore, they
consider installation technology more than the formal architectural design for solving
energy consumption problems.
Cost Versus Benefit. Achieving a rating system certification by itself might not
have any benefits; however the certification includes a promise for a green building
which while decreasing the environmental impacts, also reduces operating and
maintenance costs, and increases occupants comfort. A study on 22 green buildings (16
LEED certified and others Energy Star) by General Services Administration (GSA)
concluded compared to similar buildings, these use 25% less energy, they have 19%
lower operational costs, emit 36% less Co
2
, and building occupants are 27% more are
satisfied (GSA Public Buildings Service, 2011). The research does not evaluate the cost
of greening; therefore, there remains the need to consider the comparison between
obtaining each point and their embedded costs.
One of the most common critiques of the rating systems is the cost compared to
the benefits of being green. The cost of greening a building could be categorized in three
groups: registration and certification fees, soft costs (documentation and
82 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

compliance/design costs), and construction costs. LEED registration and certification
fees vary by project size and type, but tend to range between $.03 and $.05 per square
foot (Leej, 2011) plus soft costs of $0.35 to $ 0.80 per square feet (Steven Winter
Associates, Inc., 2004) or altogether 1.5% to 3.1% of construction costs (Northbridge
Environmental Management Consultants, 2003). Schendler and Udall claim a wider
range of 1% to 5% (2005). These percent depends on the size of the project and the level
of rating. For larger size projects, the certification is more reasonable than smaller ones.
Venables (2005) estimated that registration fees range from $750 to $3,000 [$3,500
(Eberhard, 2010)] for buildings smaller than 75,000 square feet, while for buildings
larger than 300,000 square feet, fees might vary from $1,500 to$7,000 [“$7,500 or more
depending on the size of the project” (Eberhard, 2010, p. 10)]. Research by Steven
Winter Associates, Inc. (2004) suggests this range for soft cost of different LEED level
certification: “Certified Rating: $0.35–$0.45/GSF, Silver Rating: $0.40–$0.55/GSF, and
Gold Rating: $0.55–$0.80/GSF” (p. 190).
Commissioning is one of the most important soft cost concerns. It is a
prerequisite for most of the large-scale projects. The commissioning adds $0.60–$0.80
per square foot to the construction cost (Steven Winter Associates, Inc., 2004), which
doubles soft cost or even more. “We estimate that a typical range for commissioning
costs is 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent with a most likely estimate of one percent of total
construction costs” (Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, 2003, p. 5).
However the soft cost remains an small part of obtaining a LEED certification (Venables,
2005), other costs include additional works on the LEED criteria for site; structures;
infrastructure; landscaping; roofing; heating, cooling, and ventilation systems; lighting;
83 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

piping and faucets; recycling; and construction materials. Northbridge Environmental
Management Consultants (NEMC) estimates “that greening [construction costs] adds
between three and eight percent to the cost of a ‘typically’ constructed building” (p. 7).
NEMC concludes, “Obtaining LEED certification adds from 4-11% to a project’s
construction costs” (p. 2).
Determining the costs and benefits of green certification remains an impossible
process. While some associated costs “could be objectively evaluated,” other costs and
the benefits change on a case-by-case basis (Venables, 2005, p. 3). Comparing the cost
of obtaining LEED certification to its related benefits, NEMC argues that most of the soft
costs especially registration cost, do not benefit the environment. However “the
advantage of going through the process and incurring these costs is the ‘stamp of
approval’ earned at the end” (p. 13). Fuerst and McAllister (2011) suggest that LEED
certified green buildings obtain higher rents, have lower vacancy rates, and sell for more
than non-certified buildings. Fuerst and McAllister have measured the significant effects
of LEED certified on office buildings, and Aroul and Hansz recognize the same positive
effects on residential buildings (Aroul & Hansz, 2012).
While there is an agreement on the positive productivity impact of green buildings
on their occupants, the balance between the cost and benefit may vary among different
regions, buildings, and their function (LBNL Indoor Environment Group, 2012). General
Services Administration claims that green buildings occupants are 27% more satisfied
than the nation average (GSA Public Buildings Service, 2011). The Federal Energy
Management Program assesses the rate of increase of satisfaction for sustainable design
building occupants at 6 to 16% (The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP),
84 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

2003). It is not clear that there is a direct relationship between increasing satisfaction and
increasing productivity but “if green design measures can increase productivity by 1%,
this would, over time, have a fiscal impact roughly equal to reducing property costs by
10%” (Kats, Alevantis, Mills, & Perlman, 2003, p. 58). Even though the benefits of
improving indoor air quality are certain, in some cases the benefits may not be
comparable to the relative costs. As an example a study shows that adequate ventilation
effectively removes VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) materials and is more cost-
effective than using Low-VOC materials (Platts, a Division of The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc, 2005).
In the final analysis, the world needs green buildings a lot more than green
buildings need LEED certification. The first is essential and inevitable. The
second is optional. If LEED continues to cost too much in dollars, time, and
effort, we are not going to stop building green projects, we’ll just stop certifying
them. The way things are, sometimes the LEED plaque isn’t worth the flack, and
that’s not O.K. We need green building to triumph, to take over our culture like
computers did. We need LEED—or something like it—to accelerate that
transition. We need it for our future, for our children, and for our planet.
(Schendler & Udall, 2005, p. 18)
Point Based Systems. Green building rating systems are point based and evaluate
green buildings based on points a building can obtain based on various criteria defined by
each tool. “Researchers have found that developers practice ‘points chasing,’ a process
that entails seeking the greatest number of points under assessment systems for the least
cost, regardless of environmental benefit” (Retzlaff, 2010, p. 35). Rating system
85 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

assessment tools like LEED have different levels of certification; however there is less
sufficient evidence of correlation between achieving higher degrees of certification and
energy saving (Miller, Spivey, & Florance, 2008). “Since LEED certification is costly
and time consuming” (Schendler & Udall, p. 7), when the LEED certification process
starts the design team may get obsessive to attain a higher level of certification. Despite
the fact that these effort for obtaining more points significantly improve the building
quality because “there is prestige in getting a high LEED rating; it can make your
reputation as a green company” (Schendler & Udall, 2005, p. 7). In a post-occupancy
study on 25 LEED certified buildings, their energy performance was only 5% better than
the regional Midwest average and no correlation was found between the level of LEED
certification and energy performance. (U.S. Green Building Council – Chicago Chapter,
2009). Installation of electrical car recharging stations or bike racks and showers are
good examples of achieving low-cost credits not considering if they might ever be used
(Matthiessen & Morris, 2004). The checklist format persuades the team to go for easy
and cheap points and ignores the true concept and objectives of green building. As an
example, in a renovation project saving 75% of existing building structure and shell gains
one LEED point, while reusing 5% of salvaged materials has the same value (Stein &
Reiss, 2004). Even though the last version of LEED (V3) attempts to improve evaluation
on criteria, “these new changes still do not adequately address biodiversity conservation”
(Gardner, 2009, p. 3).
Regional Environmental Concerns. Sustainability in many aspects is a regional
concept. The strategies which make a building green in one situation might be less
relative to another situation (Eberhard, 2010). However, the uniform approach of most
86 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

rating systems is not able to distinguish local considerations (Platts, a Division of The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 2005). An example is water conservation. Water
conservation is generally a high priority where water resources are limited but LEED
offers the same credits for water resource conservation in all regions (Solomon, 2005).
LEED in its last version (2009) has added four optional Regional Priority Credits out of
six possible options for each zip code in the U.S. Comparing four credits to 110 possible
credits shows the importance of the regional credits in this rating system. BREEAM has
developed different versions for different world regions.
Time Consuming. The process of certification not only imposes costs but also is
very time consuming because of a “soviet-style bureaucracy” (Schendler & Udall, 2005,
p. 3). Solomon (2005) also mentions the same problem when he says; “many accuse
LEED of being too bureaucratic. Some complain about the time and paperwork involved
in documenting applicable strategies” (p. 139).
Mandatory versus Voluntary. Most rating systems were designed as voluntary
programs, however many federal governments, states and municipalities require LEED or
other certifications for new public buildings (Bardaglio, 2009). At the end of 2004,
California’s governor signed an order requiring that design, construction, and operation
all new and renovated state-owned facilities to meet LEED Silver or higher certification
(Brown, 2010). The County of Los Angeles has the same LEED Silver certification
requirement for new buildings over 10,000 square feet. The City of Los Angeles requires
the Silver or above certification for all city-owned and city-funded construction projects,
and retrofitted buildings built before 1978 larger than 7,500 square feet; also all private
87 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or greater to earn LEED Certified
(USGBC Policy Team, 2013).
The District of Colombia, in 2006, became the first major city to require LEED
certification for all private new construction or major renovation over 50,000 square feet
(Knaap, Gardner, Bennett, Simon, & Varner, 2011). The City of Los Angeles adopted
this policy on April 2008 (USGBC Policy Team, 2013). By 2011, “135 local
governments, 26 state governments and 12 federal agencies or departments” had adopted
different levels of LEED certification for their buildings (Horton, 2011, p. 17). Some
criticism point out that LEED does not cover other sustainable issues such as “preserving
land and trees, conserving clean water resources, reducing energy use and maximizing
transportation alternatives” (Vanderpool, 2009, para.5). Another criticism is that
certification by itself carries more costs on any projects than its embedded benefits
(Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, 2003). Durham criticizes
mandating the LEED certification by law because; USGBC which certifies buildings is a
non-governmental organization. “When mandated by city code or state law, this
effectively allows a non-governmental actor to perform typical ministerial duties
performed by a governmental actor, which potentially infringes on due process rights”
(Durham, 2011, p. 78).
II.11 Summary
In 2000, the initial version of LEED, the first green building certification system in the
U.S. was launched. Buildings and environmental sustainability are largely evaluated by
rating systems. These rating systems have clearly defined sustainability in this field and
88 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

have introduced tools to gauge it. Most of these systems consider sustainability in five
known areas: sustainable site; energy efficiency; water efficiency; material conservation,
recycling; and indoor air quality. Even though these systems might use different
descriptions and values for each of these areas of interest, their similarities are
significant. They began as voluntary systems; however they have been adopted as
mandatory regulations, and more importantly they have played a benchmark role for
sustainable buildings and urban scale codes. The fact is that as a voluntary system they
could not make significant changes to the built environment, as Horton says: “If all the
LEED buildings registered today (35,000) were net zero, it would only equate to a 1%
energy savings of all the existing buildings in the US“ (Horton, 2011, p. 5)! These
systems should be considered as to the role they play in leadership and to raise the floor
for sustainable mandatory codes.

89 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Chapter Three: CALGreen: The N a tion’s First Mandatory
Green Standards Code
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the CALGreen and compare it with
point-based rating systems, LEED in particular to determine its relative efficiency in
achieving its goal. The chapter will consider:
- How the CALGreen was developed and its rule-making process
- Enforcing authorities
- CALGreen mandatory codes and voluntary tiers
- Residential and nonresidential code provisions
- A comparison of CALGreen and LEED adoption processes and indicators
III.1: CALGreen: An Important Step toward Sustainability
Despite the fact that there have been a variety of private and non-profit green
building certification programs in the marketplace, less public legislation are in practice.
On the federal level, there are two main acts which consider the energy efficiency of
buildings: the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EPA, 2010b). Many federal agencies and departments have mandated Energy
Star or LEED certification for new construction or renovation (Federal Environmental
Executive, 2003). On the state level, California’s Title 24 (California Building Standards
Code) addresses energy efficiency codes but no other sustainability requirements.
California is one of the states with relatively low greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions per capita; however its emission level is still several times greater than that of
91 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

the rest of the world. California, with total of 369.8 million metric tons of CO
2
emission
or 9.9 metric tons of CO
2
emission per capita in 2010, was ranked fourth among the 51
states (including District of Columbia) in emission (from low to high) (U.S. Department
of Energy, 2012). As Table 11 shows, the average emission per capita for U.S. was 18.2
metric tons in this year and the amount for the world was 4.6 metric tons. The U.S. GHG
emission per capita was almost five times more than the world in 2004; however, it has
decreased slightly in recent years.
Table 11
Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Capita from the Consumption of Energy (Metric Tons of
Carbon Dioxide per Person)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
United States 20.4 20.3 19.8 20.0 19.2 17.7 18.2
World 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6
California 11.0 10.9 11.1 11.2 10.7 10.2 9.9
Note. Data adapted from Per Capita Emissions, by U.S. Energy Information
Administration, 2012, Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/environment/data.cfm#intl.
In California, buildings (accounting for 25% of total emission at the state level)
are the second largest contributor to GHG emissions (Les, 2008). During last decade,
many cities and counties in the state took steps to adopt mandatory or voluntary green
codes for residential or commercial buildings. By 2008, “more than 75 California
communities had adopted green building programs for private sector residential and
commercial construction” (Les, 2008, p. 22), though the adopted green codes were
mostly based on rating systems such as LEED. With more than 1600 LEED-certified
commercial and institutional buildings, California is the leading state; yet, its ranking in
90 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

LEED-certified commercial and institutional green buildings per capita, based on the
U.S. 2010 Census information is 7
th
with 71,551,296 square feet of space and 1.92
square feet of space per capita up to 2011 (USGBC, 2012).
Rating systems have had positive and negative effects in promoting sustainable
building. The most important positive effects were defining building sustainability and
measurable criteria. Negative aspects were such as not being mandated, the registration
and certification cost, time consuming, and more importantly, they lack the structure and
formulation of building codes. Recognizing these positive and negative effects of rating
systems, in November 2008, state of California developed “a comprehensive and
uniform regulatory green building code for all new residential, commercial, hospital and
school buildings” (Energy Performance Services, para.1).
The code, CALGreen, was the first in-the-nation statewide sustainable building
coded and “won a unanimous vote by the California Building Standards Commission”
(Allen, para.8). CALGreen, the part 11 of 2010 California Building Standards Code –
Title 24, is intended to achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy
consumption, and water use. This is the first statewide green building code and was
mandated on January 1, 2011. The purpose of this code has been defined as “to improve
public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of
buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or
positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices”
(California Building Standards Commission, 2010, p. 1).
CALGreen mandatory codes address all new residential, commercial, government
buildings, which are regulated by California State codes with the exception only of high-
92 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

rise construction and those owned by the federal government, or on Indian owned land.
“Federal buildings are exempt; buildings built on Indian land, or reservations, are
exempt. But yes, ninety-nine point nine percent of the buildings built in the state are
regulated by these codes” (Walls, 2009, para.13).
According to California Air Resources Board assessment, by 2020 conformance
to the mandatory parts of the code will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 2.9 million
metric tons, the voluntary codes will reduce emission by 3.6 million metric tons, and
renovating existing buildings will reduce emission by 20 million metric tons (Air
Resources Board, 2012). The code includes various mandatory requirements and two
voluntary tiers. Tiers are in addition to the mandatory regulations and include more
rigorous requirements designed for local government, builders, or owners. Local
authorities can adopt one of the tiers or part of the regulations in one of them. The tiers
are considered to be mandated in the future. Some of the most important regulations are:
- 20% mandatory reduction in indoor water use, with voluntary goal standards for
30%, 35%, and 40% reductions. Separate water meters for non-residential
buildings' indoor and outdoor water use, with a requirement for moisture-sensing
irrigation systems for larger landscape projects.
- Requiring diversion of 50% of construction waste from landfills, increasing
voluntarily to 65% and 75% for new homes and 80% for commercial projects.
- Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e. heat furnace, air conditioner,
mechanical equipment) for non-residential buildings over 10,000 square foot to
ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design
efficiencies.
93 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

- Requiring low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet,
vinyl flooring, and particleboard. (Energy Performance Services, para.2)
Structurally, CALGreen has nearly the same categories and indicators of rating
systems, except that it is a mandatory code at no cost for certification. California
Building Standard commission explains the codes and the differences between the codes
and point-based systems as:
Like California’s existing building code provisions that regulate construction
projects throughout the state, the mandatory CALGreen code provisions will be
inspected and verified by local and state building departments. Unlike point-
based certification systems that can be purchased, the CALGreen Code mandates
required field inspections using a public, transparent infrastructure that is
stringent, successful, and cost-effective. (California Building Standards
Commission, p. 1&2)
Some of the differences between CALGreen and rating systems are described by
California Standards Commission as shown in the coming table:
Table 12
Differences between CALGreen and Point-base Rating Systems
Issues
CALGreen Building Standards
Code
Point-Based Systems
Development
process/Transparency
Public, regulatory; the state code
regulations have been developed with a
high degree of transparency and
included California building industry
and environmental group input
Guidelines have been developed
by private entities through with
membership driven
commentary. Does not have
ANSI consensus process
approval.
Participation in
development
Open public process that included
government officials, building industry,
environmental leaders and the public.
Private committee members
Collaboration
State agencies; local governments:
cities, counties and special districts
Private committee members
94 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 12, Continued
Issues CALGreen Building Standards
Code
Point-Based Systems
Enforcement/Verification
of Compliance
Field inspections required and will be
enforced by government agencies to
ensure that construction being
completed to code.
Field inspections not required;
paper audit used to award points
Post construction
certification required and
cost of certification
Certificate of occupancy; no additional
costs
Yes:
LEED certification costs:
as much as $30,000 to $50,000
Units of Measure
Standards—the code contains
regulations for building green
Points-based guidelines on
graduated implementation of
green practices
Authority Statutory
Non-government, private
organizations provide guidelines
for fees
Rationale
To promote local jurisdictions’
adoptions of the code to assist the state
in meeting its greenhouse gas reduction
goals; water and energy conservation
and related resource efficiencies.
To promote green construction
practices and local adoption
through the purchase of a points
based guidelines system
Codes/programs needed for
housing, commercial,
schools, hospitals
One code for all occupancy types –
residential, commercials, hospitals,
schools
Various point-rated systems;
there is a different set of
guidelines for each occupancy
covered
Additional books necessary
for compliance
None
Multiple and costs for each
varies
Integrated with other
California building codes
and regulations
Yes No
Format of Instructional
Materials
The code language and format follow
existing state building code; industry
and local jurisdictions familiar with this
existing infrastructure
Guideline language that may
require builders and businesses
to purchase further LEED
consultation and materials
during construction
Note. Reprinted from 2010 California Green Building Standards Code: Nation’s First
Mandatory Statewide Standards Code to Green Construction and Fight Climate Change,
by California Building Standards Commission, 2009
http://www.greensensebuilder.com/GreenBuildingCode.pdf

95 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

III.2: CALGreen Background Formation and Legislation
1978- Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings. Title 24 is part six of title 24, which was one the first and the most stringent
energy efficiency codes in the U.S. This code is a threshold for most of the rating system
such as LEED.
2004- California Green Building Initiative. Governor Schwarzenegger signed
Executive Order S ‐20‐04. The purpose of the order was to establish a baseline for the
state-owned buildings to reduce energy use and especially electricity use 20% by 2015
from a 2003 baseline. The order also encourages private sector, cities, counties, and
schools to follow state’s lead in energy efficiency (State of California Executive
Department, 2004). This policy is only for state buildings and requires Silver or higher
LEED certification for all new building and existing building over 50,000 square feet.
2005-Climate Action Team. In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed
Executive Order S-03-05. It established greenhouse gas emission reduction targets as
follows: “by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG
emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990
levels” (para.1). Simultaneously, it established the Climate Action Team (CAT) to
implement global warming emission reduction programs and report it biannually
(Executive Order S-3-05). This executive order addressed more resources other than
energy, which was addressed in executive Order S ‐20‐04 in 2004 such as recycling and
waste management, agriculture, economics, green building, cement, forestry, energy,
water, state fleet, scenarios, and land use
96 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

2006: AB 2160 Green Building Report. Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB
2160, which directed the Energy Commission submit a report on problems and
motivations for green building projects in the private sector related to 2004- California
Green Building Initiative (California Energy Commission).
2006- Global Warming Solutions Act, Assembly Bill 32. This is a California
State Law that fights climate change by asking the California Air Resources Board to
establish an implementation plan for reduction of GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020
and to 80% below 1990 level by 2050 (Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions
Act).
2007- California Green Building Standard. Up on Governor Schwarzenegger
asking California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) to advance green building
standards, the first focus group formed in July 2007. The group was comprised of the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), DGS- Division of the
State Architect (DSA), the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), and “representatives from various environmental groups, building
professionals, code enforcement agencies, industry stakeholders, and other interested
parties.” It reviewed “existing green building standards, best practices, guidelines, and
other published material in order to develop a code that related industries were familiar to
its incorporated green building measures.” At the end of same year, Governor directed
CBSC to make the code adoption preparation for the 2010 (California Building Standards
Commission, 2011, p. 3).
2008-California Green Building Standards Code. On July 2008, CBSC passed
CALGreen which was considered voluntary and effective starting August 1, 2009.
97 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

2008- AB1389. On September 2008, the governor signed AB 1389 which asked
the Department of Housing and Community Development to consider cost-effective and
feasible aspects of developed green building guidelines for CALGreen review.
2009- Initial Voluntary Standards. On August 2009, adopting a voluntary
version of the 2008 CALGreen helped local jurisdictions to prepare for the mandatory
phase. More than 40 cities in the state including the Los Angeles County cities of
Calabasas, Culver City, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Santa Monica, and West
Hollywood adopted the 2008 code (Brown, 2010) as mandatory, and collected feedback
and comments for the related state agencies (California Building Standards Commission,
2011).
2010- Mandatory Standards. On June 2010, the mandatory version of
CALGreen was published and it was mandated on January 1, 2011.
III.3: Overview of CALGreen Code Provisions
(a) Scope of Work. CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code.
Its mandatory requirements apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use,
and occupancy of every newly constructed building, or to a major renovation of one of
these groups of buildings:
1. Low-rise residential buildings three stories or less
2. Nonresidential buildings
Mixed-used buildings shall fulfill the requirements of each separate occupancy
type. Every local enforcing agency must comply with the mandatory part but may go
further than these requirements. For example, the city of Los Angeles has adopted the
98 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

mandatory requirement for all residential buildings without regard to height or number of
stories.
(b) Enforcing Authority. Except for the residential and nonresidential buildings,
which are handled by the city, enforcing agencies differ according to the use and building
occupancy. The following is a list of enforcing authorities for different building types:
1. State-owned buildings and public universities: the California Building Standard
Commission (CBSC)
2. Energy efficiency standards: the California Energy Commission
3. Hotels, motels, lodging houses, dormitories, condominiums, homeless shelters and so
on: local building department or the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD)
4. Public schools and community college buildings: the Division of the State Architect-
Structural Safety (DSA-SS)
5. Historical buildings and their sites: the State Historical Building Safety Board within
the Division of the State Architect
6. Hospitals and clinics: the office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD).
7. Graywater systems: the Department of Water Resources and the Department of
Housing and Community Development.
8. Non-state buildings: State or local agencies (California Building Standards
Commission, 2010).

99 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

III.4: What is CALGreen?
CALGreen is part 11 of Title 24, California Building Standards Code, and has
two mandatory sets of measures for residential and nonresidential buildings. In addition
to mandatory part, each includes two sets of voluntary measures, and many reserved for
residential and nonresidential voluntary measures in five areas.
1- Planning and design
2- Energy efficiency
3- Water efficiency and conservation
4- Material conservation and resource efficiency
5- Environmental quality
In summery CALGreen attempts to:
 Reduce potable water use with in buildings by 20%
 Divert 50% of construction waste from landfills
 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use of natural resources
 Control interior moisture
 Reduce parking footprint
 Control floodplain
 Control finish material pollutant (California Building Standards Commission, 2010).
Table 13 shows a comparison between mandatory measures of CALGreen for
residential and nonresidential buildings. The entire CALGreen document is reviewed and
this table only summarizes main mandatory criteria.

011 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 13
CALGreen Mandatory Measures for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings
Area of
Policy
Residential Nonresidential
1 Planning and design
1-1
Site
development
For projects less than one
acre prevent erosion and
retain soil runoff on the site
SWPPP for newly constructed projects of less than one
acre, keep surface water from entering buildings, short-
term bicycle rack within 200 feet of the visitors’
entrance, long-term bicycle secure parking for 5% of
motorized vehicle parking capacity for buildings with
over 10 occupants, parking for any combination of low
emitting, fuel-efficient & carpool/van pool vehicles,
stall striping for designated parking, decrease exterior
light levels and uniformity ratios according to ch-10 of
California Administrative Code
2 Energy efficiency
2-1
Energy
efficiency
No mandatory code except
for complying with title 24
« and
Encourage buildings to 15% reduction in energy usage
compared to the State’s mandatory energy efficiency
standards
3 Water efficiency & conservation
3-1
Indoor water
use
Reduce use of potable water
within the building ≥20%
than max allowable water
use per CA Building Code,
Combined flow rate of all
the showerhead shall not
exceed the maximum flow
rates.
«
3-2
Outdoor
water use
Automatic irrigation system
controllers for landscaping
Install irrigation controllers & sensors in new
construction with between 1,000 -2,500 square feet of
landscaped area, submeters separation for buildings in
excess of 50,000 square feet or buildings consuming
more than 1,000 gal/day, reduce 20% wastewater by
installation of water-conserving fixtures or utilizing
non-potable water systems, a water budget for
landscape irrigation use, submeters for indoor and
outdoor potable water use for landscaped areas between
1,000 -5,000 square feet
4 Material conservation and resource efficiency
4-1
Enhanced
durability
& reduced
maintenance
Sealing penetrations in the
building envelope according
to the CA Energy Code

None
4-2
Water
resistance &
moisture
management

None
weather-resistant exterior wall and foundation envelope
according to CA Building Code and CA Energy Code,
Moisture control for sprinklers, entries, and openings
010 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 13, Continued
Area of Policy Residential Nonresidential
4 Material Conservation and Resource efficiency
4-3
Construction
waste
reduction,
disposal &
recycling
Construction waste reduction of at least
50%, plan including documentation and
isolated joblists for identifying &
calculating diverted material, recycling,
reuse on the project or salvage for future
use or sale, determining if materials will be
sorted on-site or mixed and diversion
facilities
« and
Reusing or recycling 100% of trees,
stumps, rocks and associated
vegetation and soils resulting
primarily from land clearing
4-4
Building
maintenance
& operation
Manual including operation and
maintenance instructions for equipment &
appliances, roof & yard drainage, air
conditioning, irrigation, water reuse.
« and
Accessible areas serve for entire
building to deposit, storage and
collect non-hazardous materials for
recycling, Design and construction
processes commissioning for new
buildings 10,000 square feet and over
and testing and adjusting of systems
for buildings less than 10,000 square
feet
5 Environmental Quality
5-1

Fireplaces
Direct-vent sealed-combustion type
for gas fireplace, or a sealed
woodstove or pellet stove according to
the CA Energy Code, Title 24
« and
only one direct-vent sealed-combustion
5-2
Pollutant
control
Covering duct openings and protection
of mechanical equipment during
construction, finish material pollutant
control, Low-VOC and no toxic
compounds and ozone depleting for
paints and coatings, & resilient
flooring systems certified carpet
systems, certified composite wood
products, documentation of products
« and
Air filtration in regularly occupied areas
for mechanically ventilated buildings,
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)
control
5-3
Interior
moisture
control
Concrete slab foundations, moisture
content of building materials
Meet or exceed the provisions of
California Building Code
5-4

Indoor air
quality &
exhaust
ENERGY STAR mechanical exhaust
fans which exhaust directly from
bathroom with a humidity adjustment
range between of 50 to 80%

Outside air delivery and Carbon dioxide
(CO2) monitoring
5-5
Environmental
comfort
louvered or covered exhaust fans, air-
conditioning system design
Acoustical control
5-6
Outdoor air
quality

None
Ozone depletion and greenhouse gas
reductions, No Chlorofluorocarbons &
Halons for HVAC, refrigeration and fire
suppression equipment
012 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Note. Data adapted from 2010 California green building standards code, by California
Building Standards Commission, 2010, Sacramento, California Building Standards
Commission.
CALGreen has provided two appendices for residential (see appendix A) and
nonresidential (see appendix B) voluntary measures. The two-tier system is designed to
allow jurisdictions to adopt codes that go beyond the mandatory measures. The
CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures are not mandatory unless adopted by a
jurisdiction. Tier 2 follows the same items of Tier 1 except that the requirements are
more stringent with higher thresholds. For instance, for residential buildings, Tier 1 asks
for limitation of turf areas to less than 50% of landscape area yet Tier 2 asks for less than
25%. Tiers are designed to become mandatory later when adopted by local jurisdictions,
at which time they will fall under the local building department’s inspection process.
Those cities had already adopted green codes beyond the CALGreen mandatory codes,
and did not want to step back, have adopted parts of Tier 1 that comply with their existing
codes. Some of key points of Tier 1 and Tier 2 for residential buildings are illustrated in
appendix A.
The CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 sets of codes consist of two threshold
prerequisites, prerequisites, and elective measures. The first threshold prerequisite
measure of Tier 1 and Tier 2 is about compliancy with the mandatory provisions. The
second threshold for achieving Tier 2 involves complying with the Installer and Special
Inspector Qualifications requirements. Other prerequisite and elective measures for
achieving Tier 1 Tier 2 for residential buildings are described in the appendix A. Some
of key points of Tier 1 and Tier 2 for nonresidential buildings are in Appendix B.
013 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Similar to residential buildings, CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 codes for
nonresidential buildings consist of prerequisite measures and elective measures (see
Appendix C). The threshold prerequisite measure of Tier 1 and Tier 2 is complying with
the mandatory provisions and exceeding California Energy Code requirements, by 15%
for Tier 1 and 30% for Tier 2. Other prerequisite and elective measures for achieving
Tier 1 and Tier 2 for nonresidential buildings are explained in the Appendix D.
III.5: CALGreen versus LEED Adoption Process
Although CALGreen and LEED have common criteria, their structure for
adopting these sustainable criteria is completely different. Essentially CALGreen is a
code and LEED is a rating system. These are several important differences and
Table 14 compares main scopes of CALGreen and LEED.
Adoption. CALGreen is a mandatory building code for the State of California but
LEED is a voluntary nationwide rating system. However, most of the governmental
buildings including federal, state, and county in the State of California require LEED
Silver certification for all new and renovated facilities and LEED certification for
existing buildings (USGBC Policy Team, 2013). LEED certification at the Silver level is
much restrictive than CALGreen’s mandatory provisions and CALGreen lacks any
mandatory codes for existing buildings, federal and state buildings except for a few
documentation and small additional considerations can earn the CALGreen certification.
Domain of Coverage. The mandatory part of CALGreen has already been
adopted in California and all new constructions must follow its rules. Parts of voluntary
measures have been adopted by several jurisdictions in the state. Different levels of
014 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

LEED certification have been adopted for governmental buildings, but in general, LEED
adoption is voluntary and originally is designed for a small group of buildings (Dixon,
2010) and therefore is much limited than CALGreen.
Certification Process. CALGreen codes are enforced by local governments such
as cities and counties but for LEED, a third party is in charge of certification.
Criteria Flexibility. CALGreen is a strict code and is applied to projects as a set
of standards. LEED on the other hand, is point based and except for prerequisites, is
flexible in adopting criteria.
Levels of Achievement. CALGreen has three levels of adoption: mandatory
standards, Tier 1, and Tier 2. For achieving Tier 1 first should comply with mandatory
measures and for achieving Tier 2 first should comply with mandatory provisions and
Tier 1 requirements. Therefore, Tier 1 and Tier 2 are to be reinforced one after one. Tier
1 and Tier 2 consist of both prerequisite and elective criteria. Mandatory measures are
the threshold prerequisite for achieving the two tiers, and each tier has different
prerequisites and elective measures. LEED has four levels of adoption, general, silver,
gold, and platinum certification. The accepted earned points by USGBC determine the
level of certifications. It has additionally prerequisites, which are same for all levels, but
compared to the mandatory part of CALGreen, it is more flexible.
Version for Different Buildings. CALGreen has two sets of standards for
residential and nonresidential buildings, while LEED has different sets of measures for
new construction (homes, core and shell, retail, schools, neighborhood development,
healthcare) and a set for existing buildings.
015 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Registration and Certification Fees. Since CALGreen is a mandatory code, there
is no additional fee for registration or certification, while LEED certification carried out
by private third parties adds to a project’s costs. The LEED registration fees vary from
$750- $3,500 with additional certification fee from $1,500- $7,500 depending on the size
of the project (Eberhard, 2010) or by different LEED level certification (Steven Winter
Associates, Inc., 2004).
Regional Character. CALGreen is uniform across the state and generally asks
for consideration of local environmental conditions in voluntary measures, while LEED
in its last version 2009 has added four optional Regional Priority Credits out of six
options for every zip code.
Modification. CALGreen preserves local ability to impose more stringent
standards or modifications, while this is not an option for LEED.
Hardship. The mandatory code of CALGreen has less strength than the LEED
certification and a research shows that it satisfies only 16 LEED credits (Selna, 2011),
Dixon (2010) estimates it at 13 credits. Research by Simon and Associates concludes
that CALGreen mandatory measures meet 7 prerequisites and 15 LEED credits; Tier 1
meets 7 prerequisites and 22 LEED credits; and Tier 2 meets seven prerequisites and 34
LEED credits. Thomas evaluates CALGreen mandatory measures and writes that it
meets “approximately 7 LEED points and four out of 9 prerequisites in LEED NCv3”
(Thomas, 2011a, p. 15).Considering LEED general certification needs at least 40 points
out of 110 possible points, not only CALGreen mandatory part, but even Tier 1 still
cannot meet the LEED general certification (Worthen, 2010).

016 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 14
Comparing Main Scopes of CALGreen and LEED
CALGreen LEED
1 Adoption Mandatory Voluntary
2 Domain of Coverage California International
3 Enforcement Local Building Department Third Party
4
Verification of
Measure
Local Building Inspectors Third Party
5 Flexibility
Mandatory Requirements
Elective Requirements: Tier 1 & 2
Pre-Requisites (Required)
Credits (elective)
6
Level of
Adoption/Certification
Mandatory
Tier 1
Tier 2
Certified
Silver
Gold
Platinum
7 Versions Residential, Nonresidential
New Construction, Homes,
Core &Shell, Retail,
Schools, Neighborhood
Development, Healthcare,
Existing Buildings
8 Certification Fees None Certification Fees
9 Regional Character None Yes
10 Modification Local Jurisdiction None
11 Hardship Less More
12 Labeling N/A Yes

III.6: CALGreen versus LEED indicators
Sustainable rating systems and especially LEED have had an important effect on
CALGreen formulation; however the code language is the same as other building codes
for integration (Torvestad, 2004). Both CALGreen and LEED address five main
categories: sustainable site, energy efficiency, water efficiency, materials and resources
efficiency, and environment quality; although they overlap in different areas, have
noticeable differences (see Table 15).
017 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 15
Comparing Main categories of CALGreen and LEED

CALGreen LEED
1
Planning and Design Sustainable Sites
2 Energy Efficiency Energy & Atmosphere
3
Water Efficiency & Conservation Water Efficiency
4
Material Conservation & Resource Efficiency Materials & Resources
5
Environmental Quality Indoor Environmental Quality
6
- Innovation in Design
7
- Regional Priority
CALGreen has two versions for residential and nonresidential buildings. A
comparison of the two follows:
(A) -CALGreen nonresidential mandatory measures and LEED 2009 for New
Construction (NC) (see table below):
Table 16
CALGreen Nonresidential Mandatory Measures versus LEED 2009 Criteria for New
Construction
CALGreen
LEED
Section No Section Title Section No Section Title
5.1-Planning & Design Sustainable Site (SS)
5.106.1 Storm water pollution prevention plan SS PR1 Construction activity pollution prevention
5.106.4 Bicycle parking and changing rooms SS 4.2 Alternative transportation
5.106.5.2 Designated parking SS 4.3 Low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles
5.106.5.2.1 Parking stall marking N/A
5.106.8 Light pollution reduction SS 8 Light pollution reduction
5.106.10 Grading and paving N/A
5.2- Energy Efficiency Energy & Atmosphere (EA)
5.2 Energy efficiency EA PR2 Minimum energy performance

018 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 16, Continued
CALGreen LEED
Section No Section Title Section No Section Title
5.3- Water Efficiency & Conversation Water Efficiency (WE)
5.303 Indoor water use WE 3 Water use reduction
5.303.1 Water Meters & Submeters N/A
5.303.2 20% water savings WE 2 Water use reduction
5.303.2.1 Multiple showerheads serving one shower WE PR1 Innovative wastewater technologies
5.303.4 Wastewater reduction N/A
5.303.6 Plumbing fixtures and fittings N/A
5.304 Outdoor water use N/A
5.304.1 Water budget N/A
5.304.2 Outdoor potable water use N/A
5.304.3 Irrigation design N/A
5.4- Material Conservation & Resource Efficiency Materials & Resources (MR)
5.407.1 Weather protection N/A
5.407.2 Moisture control N/A
5.408.1 Construction waste diversion MR 2 Construction waste management
5.408.2 Construction waste management plan MR 2 Construction waste management
5.408.3 Construction waste reduction of at least 50% MR 2 Construction waste management
5.408.4 Excavated soil and land clearing debris N/A
5.410.1 Recycling by occupants MR PR1 Storage and collection of recyclables
5.410.2 Commissioning EA 3 Enhanced commissioning
5.410.4 Testing and adjusting N/A
5.5- Environment Quality Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ)
5.503.1 Fireplaces N/A
5.504.3
Covering of duct openings and protection of
mechanical equipment during construction
IEQ 3.1
Construction indoor air quality
management plan—during
construction
5.504.4 Finish material pollutant control IEQ 4 Low-Emitting Materials
5.504.7 Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control IEQ PR2 ETS control
5.505 Indoor moisture control N/A
5.506 Indoor air quality IEQ 1 Outdoor air delivery monitoring
5.507 Environmental comfort N/A
5.508 Outdoor air quality EA 4 Low-emitting materials
019 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Note. Data adapted from California Green Building Standards Code by California
Building Standards Commission 2010, Sacramento and LEED 2009 for New
Construction and Major Renovation by U.S. Green Building Council
The following text presents a comparison of CALGreen nonresidential mandatory
measures and LEED 2009 for New Construction (NC) criteria in five main categories:
1- Sustainable Site. The overlapped areas are storm water pollution, bicycle
parking and changing rooms, designated parking for carpools and low-emitting vehicles,
and light pollution reduction. Bike parking in CALGreen is based on parking capacity,
while in LEED it is based on project occupancy. Furthermore, low emission vehicle and
parking for carpool are two different credits in LEED, which requires 5% of preferred
parking space for any of these (Thomas, 2011b). The CALGreen mandatory measures
satisfy the LEED prerequisite on Construction Activity Pollution Prevention and two
credits out of 26 possible points (Spilger, 2011).
2- Energy efficiency. This is one of the main differences between CALGreen and
LEED because there is no mandatory provision in CALGreen. However, LEED not only
has three prerequisites for energy efficiency, but it also offers 35 possible points.
Prerequisite exceeding California Energy Code requirements by 15% for Tier 1 satisfies
the 10% Minimum Energy Performance category in LEED and earn two more credits;
and prerequisite exceeding California Energy Code requirements by 30% for Tier 2 earn
10 more credits.
3- Water Efficiency. Although both cover indoor and outdoor water efficiency,
their metric is different. A 20% indoor potable water use reduction in CALGreen
satisfies the LEED prerequisite, but other codes do not earn any of 10 possible points.
01 0 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Prerequisite CALGreen indoor water use of less than 30% for Tier 1 earns two points
from LEED and this prerequisite for Tier 2 earns three points.
4- Materials and Resources Efficiency. The overlapping areas in the two sets of
requirements are construction waste reduction, recycling, and commissioning. The
recycling code in CALGreen satisfies LEED prerequisites and construction waste
reduction of at least 50% can earn one point out of 14 LEED possible points.
5-Environment Quality. Overlapping areas are pollutant control, finish material
pollutant control, environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control, and indoor and outdoor
air quality. CALGreen mandatory provisions on ETS and Ventilation can satisfy LEED
prerequisites and other codes may earn 5-15 LEED possible points (Spilger, 2011) out of
15 possible points.
(B) -CALGreen residential mandatory measures and LEED 2009 for Homes (see
table below):
Table 17
CALGreen Residential Mandatory Measures versus LEED Criteria for Home
CALGreen LEED
Section No. Section Title Section No. Section Title
4.1-Planning & design Sustainable Site (SS)
4.106.2 Storm water drainage and retention during construction SS 4
Surface water management
4.106.3
Surface drainage
N/A
4.2-Energy efficiency Energy & Atmosphere (EA)
4.2 Energy Efficiency

4.3-Water efficiency & conversation Water Efficiency (WE)
4.303.1 20% water savings WE 3 Indoor water use
4.303.2 Multiple showerheads serving one shower N/A
4.303.3 Plumbing fixtures and fittings WE 3 Indoor water use
4.304 Outdoor water use WE2 Irrigation system
000 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 17, Continued
CALGreen
LEED
Section No. Section Title Section No. Section Title
4.4 - Material conservation & resource efficiency Materials & Resources (MR)
4.406.1 Joints and openings N/A
4.408 Construction waste reduction, disposal and recycling MR 3
Waste management
4.408.2 Construction waste management plan N/A
4.410 Building maintenance and operation

4.410.1
Operation and maintenance manual N/A
4.5-Environment Quality Indoor Environment Quality (EQ)
4.503.1 Fireplaces N/A
5.504.1 Covering of duct openings and protection
of mechanical equipment during
construction
EQ 8 Contaminant control
4.504.2 Finish material pollutant control N/A
4.505 Interior moisture control EQ 3 Moisture Control
4.506 Indoor air quality and exhaust N/A
4.507 Environmental comfort N/A
Note. Data adapted from California Green Building Standards Code by California Building
Standards Commission 2010, Sacramento and LEED for Homes Rating System by U.S.
Green Building Council 2008.
The following text presents a comparison of CALGreen residential mandatory measures
and LEED 2009 criteria for Homes in five main categories:
1- Sustainable Site. The CALGreen mandatory code, Prevent erosion and retain
soil runoff, satisfies the LEED prerequisite of Erosion Controls during Construction but
earns no credits out of 32 possible points.
002 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

2- Energy Efficiency: Like CALGreen for nonresidential buildings, there is no
mandatory provision in CALGreen for residential buildings but LEED for home has one
prerequisite and 22 possible points.
3- Water Efficiency. There is no prerequisite in LEED for this provision. Since
the minimum flow rates of 20% indoor potable water use reduction in CALGreen is
higher than the acceptable flow rate in LEED, it may meet three LEED points.
4- Materials and Resources Efficiency. The mandatory codes in CALGreen do
not satisfy LEED prerequisites but construction waste reduction of at least 50% may earn
three points out of 16 LEED possible points.
5-Environment Quality. The fireplace, ventilation, and exhaust fan codes may
meet LEED prerequisite. Other codes on interior moisture control may earn three LEED
points.
As it has been illustrated, CALGreen mandatory measures overlap with some
areas of LEED. There are several criteria in CALGreen which are not considered in
LEED (Table 18) such as grading and paving, water meters, plumbing fixture, weather
protection, fireplaces and woodstoves, and acoustical control codes for nonresidential
building (Simon & Associates, Inc., 2010a) and joints and openings, and aerosol paints
and coatings codes for residential buildings (Simon and Associates, 2010b). LEED
requirements are more restrictive than CALGreen measures and cover a broader range of
green building strategies, of which some are parts of voluntary measures. However,
some of the LEED credits were already adopted in different jurisdictions in the state of
California. Therefore, some believe that while CALGreen sets and raises the minimum
003 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

expectation of green codes and sustainability, LEED raises the maximum anticipation
(Spilger, 2011).
Table 18
CALGreen Measures for Nonresidential Buildings that are not in LEED NC
Measure # CALGreen Mandatory Measure without Overlap in LEED
5.106.10 Keep surface water from entering building by grading & paving
5.303.1 Water meters for buildings>50,000 square feet.; water meters for excess consumption
5.303.6 Plumbing fixtures and fittings: do not exceed state maximum flow rates per fixture
5.304.2 Outdoor potable water use ((separate meters/submeters for landscapes 1,000-5,000sf)
5.407.1 Weather protection ((already required by California Building Code Section 1403.2)
5.407.2 Moisture control: prevent intrusion from sprinklers; entries and openings
5.503.1 Fireplaces pollution standards
5.505.1 Indoor moisture control (references other parts of the Building Code)
5.507.4 Acoustical control, exterior noise transmission, and interior sound (minimum STCs
for walls, roofs, exteriors, tenant partitions)
Note. Reprinted from The CALGreen Companion Guide for LEED Projects by A. Rider,
N. Kinsey, and W. Sullens, Version 2.0, 2012, Oakland, StopWaste.Org. Retrieved from
http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/calgreen_companion_guide_v2_0.pdf
III.7 The Most Recent Critiques of CALGreen
As it has been noted earlier, CALGreen is the first nationwide green code,
although many cities and jurisdictions around the country have adopted green codes, in
some cases with even more restrictive standards (Tweed, 2011). Even though the code
has been mandated for a short time, there have been many concerns about it. Some of
them are presented here.
004 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Mandating CALGreen. Mandating CALGreen as a set of codes has faced
different opposition views (Levin, 2012). One of the most important one was a joint
letter by six environmental groups including, USGBC, Sierra Club, Built It Green, and
the NRDC to the Governor Schwarzenegger in December 2009. These powerful
environmental groups, indicating successes of existing rating systems, and concerned
about the market confusion, asked him to veto the code. “If the state introduces a new
quasi rating system, it will cause disruption and confusion in the marketplace, hindering
the tremendous progress California is making on green building” (Dixon, 2010, p. 53).
Objections to the code continue even after it is mandated.
Existing Buildings. CALGreen is designed for new buildings, however new
buildings are a small part of the number of structures which contribute to GHG
emissions. It is important to remember that existing buildings, which comprise the bulk
of the inventory of buildings, are not covered by this code. “Even if the California codes
are copied in other states, like Oregon or Washington, it is still only a drop in the bucket
compared to existing buildings” (Tweed, 2011, para.7). The Building Standards
Commission included existing commercial buildings if the additions and remodels
permits exceed 2,000 square feet or a $500,000 cost, effective July 1, 2012. The state has
released its intent to reduce the threshold to 1,000 square feet or $200,000 cost effective
Jan 1, 2014 (California Building Standards Commission, 2012). The idea came from the
successful experience of the city of Los Angeles, which on December 2010 included
additions and alterations over $200,000 in valuation to mandatory provisions (Nearman,
2013).
005 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Undermining Existing Green Codes. Before the mandating of CALGreen, many
cities and jurisdictions in the State of California had already adopted several restricted
green codes. These communities were concerned that CALGreen adoption might
destabilize those codes and policies (Tweed, 2011). The mandatory part of CALGreen is
enforced for all new buildings in the scope of the code; however the local jurisdictions
may adopt part of Tier 1 or 2 or keep their existing code “as long as they do not interfere
with CALGreen requirements”. The purpose of CALGreen never was to “replace
individual jurisdictions’ environmental programs and ordinances” (Hill, 2011, para.8).
There were roughly 10 percent of jurisdictions in the state doing some level of
green building, with a required or voluntary program in place. Some of them, of
course, were the bigger cities. But as you look deeper, bigger cities aren’t always
doing the most in terms of new construction. In terms of jurisdictions and size,
though, we’ve now captured the 90 percent of the jurisdictions within the state
that were doing nothing. (Walls, 2010, para.15)
Cost. Even though CALGreen does not ask for certification fee, it imposes other
extra costs. These costs include soft cost such as additional design and documentation
time, extra professional work, extra plan check and inspection costs, and the extra
construction cost to meet the requirements. These costs are claimed to “offset by the
benefits of reduced energy costs, increased building durability and functionality,
improved health of the building occupants, and increased market valuation of the
building” (Scott, 2011, para.2). Sullens (2010) claims that all other applicant, owner, and
jurisdictional costs of rating systems’ certification including: “extra design time,
consultant or special inspection fees, material and equipment upgrade costs, upkeep of
006 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

referenced standard, ongoing staff training on enforcement, and review and verification”
(p. 15) are applied to CALGreen certification, with the exception only of registration and
certification fees, which are only 1-2% of total cost. Commissioning is one of the main
costs of CALGreen and rating systems’ certification. Research by stopwaste.org, claims
that “when all the first costs are weighed, third-party certification costs nearly the same
as CALGreen Tier” and “Tier 1 does not meet the minimum 40 points necessary for
LEED certification” (Sullens, 2010, p. 16).
Restriction. The integrity of CALGreen has been questioned by many “heavy
hitting environmental groups” (Dixon, 2010, p. 53). Since the codes are notably less
restrictive than rating systems like LEED, there is a lingering question of whether the
code will have an important impact or if it is just a form of “greenwashing” (Everblue).
Overall, CALGreen and LEED or other rating systems have many similarities and
overlap in various ways. However, LEED and other rating systems are much more
restrictive and cover wider ranges of sustainable buildings. Many believe CALGreen
defines a threshold for green buildings, while other rating systems increase the
expectation (Spilger, 2011).
Energy Efficiency. CALGreen in its mandatory provisions does not require any
energy efficiency over the level of Title 24, mainly because “California already has the
strictest energy conservation code in the country” (Hill, 2011, para.20). This is one of the
most important differences between CALGreen and LEED, because LEED mandates
10% energy efficiency over Title 24 as a prerequisite (Spilger, 2011). CALGreen in Tier
1 for both residential and nonresidential buildings requires 15% energy efficiency above
Title 24, and for Tier 2, 30% above Title 24.
007 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Enforcement. City officials are in charge of plan reviews and inspections and
there is a concern about their ability to handle these codes (Everblue) especially in small
cities and those cities with less human or financial resources.
Revision and Modification. Every code has an initial three-year implementation
period after which it can be revised. California Building Standards Commission has
already revised CALGreen mandatory for nonresidential buildings and it became
affective from July 2012 (California Building Standards Commission, 2012). These
revisions might happen to all codes, however for CALGreen, which still is in the first
year of adoption, these new and very detailed revisions might cause confusion. By
enforcing CALGreen mandatory provision, the local jurisdictions have the option to
amend parts of Tier 1 and Tier 2 or to customize it according to their existing green codes
as long as it does not conflict with CALGreen mandatory requirements. This means that
“each building department can mandate its own documentation and compliance review
process as well – from requiring third-party reviews (Thomas, 2011b, para.8). To date
more than 50 cities have modified CALGreen. The range of modification is very broad
from no modification to adopting Tier 1 and Tier 2 with a few exceptions (Green Code
Pro, 2012). Several cities, before enforcing the CALGreen had adopted other green
codes, but those cities were exceptional and mostly the cities that builders found of
particular interest for investing in with growing market and reasonable benefit. A few
months after CALGreen adoption, thirty cities added several amendments (PRWeb,
2011) and after a year, the number of cities which had added amendments was doubled,
suggesting that CALGreen modification is becoming a trend. Different code
requirements are causing inconsistency across jurisdictional boundaries and confusion for
008 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

building professionals (PRWeb, 2011). According to a survey, Scott (2012) assesses that
even though there have been many training courses and information session for building
industry professionals, training remains an important challenge for CALGreen
implementation. The adoption of Tier 1 by the State does not seem an option, because
“smaller jurisdictions have experienced many challenges in implementing CALGreen
[mandatory codes] due to lack of staff and resources” (Scott, 2012, para.2).
Prescriptive versus performance based codes. The CALGreen codes, like LEED
and other rating systems, are based on a checklist which as a prescriptive code does not
guarantee performance improvement (Tweed, 2011).
III.8 Summary
California has been active in environmental policies and regulations long enough
to make it a leader in this field. Energy Efficiency Standards of Title 24, adopted in 1978
as the state energy saving code, are the most restrictive, innovative, and successful energy
efficiency codes in the U.S. Since the start of green rating systems almost 10 years ago,
there has been always a challenge that by going beyond the mandatory codes,
sustainability might lose its attraction because of the balance between achievements and
embedded expenses. CALGreen by many aspects is similar to building rating systems;
however it created uniform and consistent environmental regulations which have raised
the knowledge, awareness, and level of expectations of green codes. Moreover, they
have filled the gap between mandatory codes and voluntary rating systems. The new
code represents minimum green building standards which are expected to raise prospects
of energy and water efficiency “and not a substitute for more stringent local or private
009 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

green building certification standards” (Thomas, 2011a, p. 18). Seiter (2007) explains,
“There is a continuing dynamic relationship between voluntary building performance
programs and codes. It’s not a matter of having one or the other; it’s a matter of finding a
good balance between them” (Seiter, 2007, p. 1).
The uniform mandated CALGreen code has been under criticism that is not
restrictive enough, however the general belief is that most it has been an important and
essential step toward promoting the green building design and construction, and will have
an enormously beneficial effect on the environment in California. “The combination of
green base codes and LEED’s performance-based approach provides California
jurisdictions with an opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of both an improved
baseline in the California codes and above-code, third-party rating systems” (Horton,
2011, p. 14). There have been other critiques of CALGreen such as its cost, its
prescriptive character, and the modifications that may cause confusion.

021 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Chapter Four: CALGreen Best Practices
The focus of this chapter is an evaluation of CALGreen practices at a number of
cities in Los Angeles County. At this writing, CALGreen has been adopted for
approximately two years, and the aim of this chapter is to review the experiences of those
who have been involved in launching these codes. CALGreen is a new policy and there
has been almost no research on its implementation. Most of the criticisms are on the
policy evaluation, not about its implementation and the policy in the practice. Despite the
fact that the policy provisions might have had problems, many of which were discussed
in Chapter Three, it has been mandated and an overview of its use requires a useful and
realistic analysis. Given the lack of former researches on CALGreen implementation, a
series of interviews were conducted with the city authorities and building industry
professionals.
IV.1 Methodology
The research includes in-depth interviews of key personnel and related authorities
in selected cities to understand and document the details of the best practice. The
interviews were intended to access two groups of people: first the city authorities who as
part of their jobs regularly enforce these codes and review different projects as part of the
plan checking and inspection process, and second the building industry professionals who
now must comply with these new codes. Employing open-ended questions allowed
interviewees to answer questions in the way and in as much depth as they chose. It was
important that interviewees answer questions according to their personal experiences and
020 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

bring up their concerns about these codes. The interviews were conducted during
January and February of 2013 and data about the projects were consistent with the date of
interviews.
In order to best design the questionnaire, three pretest interviews were conducted.
Authorities from Los Angeles Planning Department and Green Building division helped
to review the process and challenges of launching CALGreen codes. These pretest
interviews were conducted at the end of 2011 and city authorities’ concerns were
reflected in the questionnaires. After designing the questionnaire, I found out about a
similar survey by Green Code Pro which was to review “Common challenges and lessons
learned in implementing the code,” after one year of CALGreen launch. The result of the
survey was released on May 23, 2012. Some of the questions from that survey were
merged into my questionnaire. However, the Green Code Pro survey comprised a
questionnaire of 20 mostly multiple-choice questions which was sent to 170 building
code officials in the state of California (Green Code Pro, 2012) and analyzed the 32
received responses (an 18.8% participate rate). By contrast, the questionnaires used for
the purpose of this study consisted of 26 fill-in questions plus 10 detailed questions
allowing for a more in depth response. This questionnaire was submitted to 21 selected
building code officials and building department staff in Los Angeles County and 13
responses were received (a 61.9% participation rate).
Respondents from twenty-one cities were contacted via telephone calls and/or
emails for a face-to-face interview. The rationale of selecting the cities will be explained
later. Table 20 shows all 81 cities larger than 5,000 populations in the Los Angeles
County which are classified by population, income class, and green policies. Those cities
022 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

in the Table 20 that are in bold underlined are cities were contacted. These are:
Alhambra, Bell Gardens, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Calabasas, Cudahy, Glendale,
Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, Lawndale, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Manhattan Beach, Maywood, Pasadena, San Gabriel, Santa Clarita, South Pasadena,
Temple City, and West Hollywood. The Table indicates that city staffs from every group
were contacted. The questionnaire was sent to all of contact authorities to review it
before the interview. With only one exception, the interviews were conducted in person,
and were approximately one hour in duration. The one exception was with the
representative from the city of Burbank, who chose to provide written responses in lieu of
an in person interview. Since a third party was involved in plan checking and inspection
of four cities therefore totally nine officials from thirteen cities were interviewed face-to-
face.
Questionnaire. Two sets of questionnaires were developed, one for the city
authorities and the other for building industry professionals. The questionnaires
consisted of four common sets of questions: (a) general questions, (b) plan checking, (c)
inspection, and (d) opinion (see appendices E and F). The questions asked of the city
officials were related to: (a) the department which reviews CALGreen codes, (b) the
adopted amendments and other green programs, (c) the training process, (d) the projects
which have been reviewed, and (d) the plan for future green program adoption. The
questions for building professionals were about: (a) the cities where had reviewed their
projects, (b) the training process, (c) the adopted amendments and other green programs
in the cities that they practice, and (d) additional time and cost of CALGreen codes for
projects. The plan checking and inspection questions asked both groups to compare the
023 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

process of these codes with the process of other codes. The opinion questions asked both
groups about: the effects of different applied amendments in cities; complaints about
CALGreen in general and its components; commissioning; and if these codes or similar
codes might by adopted by other states.
Interview Samples. Los Angeles County consists of 88 cities, of which 81
cities have population more than 5,000. The first step was to select the cities for
interview. The selection of case study cities was based on the city population, the city
average household income, and the city adopted CALGreen or other green voluntary
ordinances. These cities were selected from a different range to present a variety of the
state’s cities.
1- Population. According to 2010 census data, Los Angeles County population
ranges from 112 in Vernon to 3,792,621 in Los Angeles. The population range that this
research has considered is from 5,000 (which excludes very small cities) to 3,792,621 in
Los Angeles and left 81 cities of the original 88. The median population of the 81 cities
is 46,361. The cities are divided into three population groups: small cities of greater than
5,000 to 32,000, mid-size cities of greater than 32,000 to 65,000, and large cities of
greater than 65,000. This range almost matches the range of number of dwelling units
and Table 19 summarizes these ranges.
2- Median household income. According to 2010 census data, Los Angeles
County median household income for these 81 cities ranges from $37,224 in Huntington
Park to $163,542 in Palos Verdes Estates. The median household income is $62,464.
The cities are grouped to three levels of income; low-income cities of greater than
024 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

$37,224 to 52,000, middle-income cities of greater than $52,000 to $75,000, and high-
income cities of greater than $75,000 to 163,542. Table 19 summarizes these ranges.
3- Home ownership rate. The home ownership rate was not a factor in selecting
the cities, however the wide range of this rate among the selected sample cites, was
another example of the heterogeneous nature of the selected cities (see Table 22). The
rate of home ownership in the Los Angeles County between 2007 and 2011 ranges from
16.2% for the city of Cudahy to 96.4% for the city of La Habra Heights. The range
among sample cities is from 16.2% for the city of Cudahy to 71.6% for the city of Santa
Clarita.
Table 19
Population and Median Household Income Ranges in the County of Los Angeles to Select
the Cities for the Survey
Range Median Range 1 Range 2 Range 3
Population
2010
5,000 –
3,792,621
46,361 5,000 - 32,000 32,001 - 65,000
65,001 and
more
median household
income ($)
2010
37,224 -
163,542
62,464 37,000 - 52,000 52,001 - 75,000
75,001 -
165,000
Home ownership
rate (2007-2011)
%
16.2 - 96.4 54.5 16 - 48 48.1 - 65 65.1 - 100

4- Adopted CALGreen’s voluntary ordinances. The California Building
Standards Commission has allowed the adoption of local amendments or ordinances by
local jurisdictions. These amendments are expected to be more restrictive than the
mandatory part of CALGreen code requirements and are to be based on findings
regarding local topographic, climatic, or geologic conditions. Prior to mandating
025 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

CALGreen, several cities had adopted green ordinances; most of those cities have since
adopted parts of CALGreen voluntary measures or other green ordinances. Based on the
survey result by California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), as of
May 2012, more than 90 jurisdictions (including 89 towns and cities and three counties)
had adopted local green ordinances above the CALGreen mandatory measures. Those
cities in the Los Angeles County include Artesia, Baldwin Park, Beverly Hills, Calabasas,
Carson, Culver City, Glendale, Hermosa Beach, La Mirada, La Puente, Lomita, Long
Beach, Los Angeles, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Pomona,
Rolling Hills Estates, San Gabriel, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Whittier (OPR,
2012). Since this factor was the most important element in the study, related officials
from almost all of these cities were contacted or their green programs were reviewed to
inspect the accuracy of OPR survey. This research demonstrated that these data are
inaccurate and the number of cities that adopted voluntary green measures is actually
rather limited (see Table 20). The adopted standards range from minor to considerable
amendments. For this variable, the cities are divided into two groups: cities with no-
green ordinance, and cities with green ordinance.
Table 20
County of Los Angeles’ Cities in Each Group
Population
Household
Income
No-green Ordinance Green Ordinances
Small
Low-Income
Commerce, Cudahy*, Maywood, South El Monte,
San Fernando

Middle-
Income
Artesia, Duarte, Hawaiian Gardens, Lomita,
Santa Fe Springs, Signal Hill

High-Income
Agoura Hills, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, La
Canada Flintridge, La Habra Heights, La Verne,
Malibu, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills
Estates, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South
Pasadena, Walnut, Westlake Village
Calabasas
026 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 20, Continued
Population
Household
Income
No-green Ordinance Green Ordinances
Mid-size
Low-Income
Azusa, Bell, Bell Gardens, Gardena, Huntington
Park, La Puente, Lawndale, Montebello,
Paramount, Rosemead

Middle-Income
Covina, Culver City, Monrovia, Pico Rivera, San
Dimas, San Gabriel, Temple City
West Hollywood
High-Income
Arcadia, Cerritos, Claremont, Diamond Bar,
Glendora, La Mirada, Rancho Palos Verdes
Beverly Hills,
Manhattan
Beach
Large
Low-Income
Alhambra, Baldwin Park, Bellflower, Compton,
El Monte, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lancaster,
Lynwood, Pomona, South Gate
Los Angeles,
Long Beach
Middle-Income
Burbank, Carson, Downey, Norwalk, Palmdale,
Torrance, West Covina, Whittier
Glendale, Santa
Monica,
Pasadena
High-Income Lakewood, Redondo Beach, Santa Clarita
Note. *= Cities which were contacted are in bold and underlined
Sample I. The first group of interviews included officials in selected cities.
Since this survey intended to reach an acceptable range of California’s cities as a
representative of cities statewide, several cites from each group were contacted.
Table 21 shows the cities in each group which participated in the interview and
Table 22 shows the relevant city data. Even though the interviews tried to reach a wide
range of cities from different categories, the availability of city staff and the limited
number of cities in every category resulted in a more selective samples. For example,
there is no small city in the range of low to middle-income or large high-income city that
has adopted any voluntary green ordinance. Almost all cities in the Los Angeles County
that had adopted green ordinances above CALGreen codes were contacted to participate
in this interview and only the cities listed in the table 21 responded.
Sample II. The second group was building industry professionals who must
now comply with these new codes. This is an extremely broad pool of potential
027 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

interviewees. After contacting representative of several building companies responsible
for building projects in some of the sample cities, it was clear that numerous professions
deal with these codes. These include designers, architects, mechanical engineers,
electrical engineers, civil engineers, consultants, project managers, contractors, and
building permit expeditors. This variety made interviews with this group difficult,
because the interviewee’s profession tended to limit applicable questions to only a few,
and those applicable questions were different for each profession. After interviewing ten
different professionals, it was clear that this group approaches CALGreen codes much
too differently based on their background, their position, and their contribution to
projects. As an example, one of the interviewees who is a designer and LEED consultant
responded that although these codes are a good start for sustainability, they are very
limited and should be more advanced. By contrast, another interviewee who is a project
manager did not support these codes because of their embedded costs. An additional
limitation was the relatively new nature of these codes. Since codes were so recently
adopted, none of the interviewees had more than one project reviewed for CALGreen
codes. Accordingly there are some of the results of interviewees:
Training. None of the interviewees was invited or had attended in a formal
education or training by cities or state agencies. Two had attended informal sessions with
private organizations. Most of the interviewees obtained information about CALGreen
by Internet searches and through their involvement in projects.
Cost. While cost should be an important factor for evaluating these codes from
the building professionals view, many of interviewees in this group were not involved in
the project budget. All interviewees agreed that designing and construction for
028 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

complying with CALGreen codes crested extra cost for projects. However, their
responses to the question how much extra may CALGreen codes compliance add to
projects cost differed from almost 0% to 25%. Clearly, the CALGreen cost for a small
residential building is very different from a large nonresidential building especially when
it requires commissioning
1
. Nevertheless, when evaluating the percentage of imposed
cost, both 0% and 25% appear unrealistic, and perhaps are a result of positive or negative
attitudes to these codes. Other opinions were 5% on construction cost, 5% extra time for
design, 10-15% extra designing cost, 7-10% construction cost, 6% extra time for
documentation, and no significant extra cost for residential.
Support and complaint. Most but not this entire group of interviewees supported
CALGreen. They believed that CALGreen is environmentally sensitive, results in the use
of high efficiency appliances, insulation and double pane windows for energy efficiency,
and lowers electricity, water, and gas consumption. Complaints differed based on
interviewee’s engagement in the projects and most of them were technical complaints.
Several thought that employing the code only for one project is an insufficient basis from
which to evaluate these codes. Some of complaints were that: document of required
materials are hard to obtain; the code has conflicts such as minimum permeability but no
minimum for landscaping; reused materials are expensive; code compliance requires time
consuming, paper work, and documentation; drainage system requirements are not clear,
expensive, and time consuming; commissioning is expensive and confusing; and the
requirement for insulation under the foundation is confusing.

1
Commissioning is a CALGreen requirement for new nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet. It
is a quality assurance provided by a qualified expert or third party company to verify the building energy-
using equipment and system operate accurately.
029 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Prescriptive versus performance base codes. Although several interviewed
architects believed that CALGreen like other codes limits the designers’ innovation
potentials, all agreed that complying with prescriptive codes is easier than performance
codes.
The possibility of adopting statewide green codes in other states. Regardless of
their level of support of green codes, all participants in this group believed that other
states would follow California’s lead in green codes adoption.
As a result of the heterogeneous and broad pool of potential interviewees in this
sample, the limited number of this study participants from each professions, and
consequently heterogeneous responses to the questionnaire, bias is not likely to affect the
outcomes of this sample to this study analysis.

Table 21
Cities’ Authority Participated in the Survey
Population Household Income No-green Ordinance Green Ordinances
Small
Low-Income Cudahy
Middle-Income
High-Income South Pasadena Calabasas
Mid-size
Low-Income Huntington Park
Middle-Income Temple City, San Gabriel
High-Income
Large
Low-Income Inglewood, Alhambra Los Angeles
Middle-Income Burbank Santa Monica, Glendale
High-Income Santa Clarita

031 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 22
Cities Participated in the Survey: Population, Housing Units, Median Household Income,
Median Value of Owner-occupied Housing, and Homeownership Rate

City
2010
Census
2000
Census
Rate
2000-
2010
Housing
Units
2010
Median
household
income 2010
Median Value
Owner-
Occupied
Housing Units,
2007-2011
Homeowner
ship Rate,
2007-2011
1 Alhambra 83,089 85,804 -3.2% 30,915 51,527 505,600 41.5%
2 Burbank 103,340 100,316 3.0% 44,309 63,356 596,500 43.9%
3 Calabasas 23,058 20,033 15.1% 8,878 116,403 921,100 74.7%
4 Cudahy 23,805 24,208 -1.7% 5,770 41,805 248,200 16.2%
5 Glendale 191,719 194,973 -1.7% 76,269 54,677 624,100 39.4%
6
Huntington
Park
58,114 61,348 -5.3% 15,151 37,224 351,900 28.4%
7 Inglewood 109,673 112,580 -2.6% 38,429 43,460 372,300 36.6%
8
Los
Angeles
3,792,621 3,694,820 2.6% 1,413,995 49,138 513,600 38.4%
9
San
Gabriel
39,718 39,804 -0.2% 13,237 56,720 563,400 51.2%
10
Santa
Clarita
176,320 151,088 16.7% 62,055 82,642 424,400 71.6%
11
Santa
Monica
89,736 84,084 6.7% 50,912 68,842 987,300 27.9%
12
South
Pasadena
25,619 24,292 5.5% 11,118 82,340 834,400 48.0%
13
Temple
City
35,558 33,377 6.5% 12,117 65,668 585,200 62.5%

030 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

IV.2 Research Outcomes
From the first step, the survey acted as a brainstorm to collect different views and
opinions about the future of CALGreen. Therefore, the data extracted from this survey
will not be analyzed utilizing a statistical model. Although all the interviews in this
chapter have been reviewed, not all of them are used in the final summation at the final
chapter. Part of responds seemed personal opinions and those which were common
among interviewees or were based on the city data captured to the final
recommendations.
Interviewee positions and offices. Every attempt was made to interview the head
of the relevant department in each city; however in some cases lower ranked staff
members completed the interview. Table 23 shows the offices in every sample city that
review CALGreen codes and the interviewees’ position in cities.
Training process. Although since 2008, when the California Building Standards
Commission released the draft version of CALGreen, many seminars, webinars, classes,
and workshops (mostly free) were held for CALGreen preparation, only a few planned
and organized trainings took place. The training city budget had an important effect on
training process. Since almost all building codes are periodically reviewed and revised,
some cities had already training budgets in place for new codes adoption such as city of
Glendale and Calabasas. Although these cities did not receive a specific training budget
increase (see Table 27), they still had sufficient resources for CALGreen training.
Another important factor was the existing level of city staff familiarity with green
measures. Training process in the cities that had already adopted green ordinances was
less complicated. In most of the cities, one of the more qualified staff members received
032 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

external training and then the training process was continued via internal meetings with
other staff members. The city of Los Angeles was an exception. In this city, a new green
building division was established and specialized for CALGreen codes. All division staff
members were trained in two different groups: plan checker and inspector.
Table 23
The Interviewees’ Positions and Offices

City Interviewee Position
CALGreen Plan Check and
Inspection Office
1 Alhambra Building Official (Third Party) Building Department
2 Burbank Senior Administrative Analyst Building Division
3 Calabasas Senior Building Inspector Building Department
4 Cudahy Building Inspector Third Party for Plan Checking and
Building & Safety for Inspection
5 Glendale Building Official Building & Safety
6 Huntington Park Building Official (Third Party) Building & Engineering Department
7 Inglewood Plan Check Supervisor Building Division
8 Los Angeles Building Civil Engineer Green Building Division
9 San Gabriel Community Development
Permit Technician
Building Division
10 Santa Clarita Assistant Building Official Building & Safety
11 Santa Monica Building Official Building & Safety
12 South Pasadena Building Official (Third Party) Building Department
13 Temple City Building Official (Third Party) Building & Safety
The announcement about the new code for local designers and building
professionals, if any, was through brochures in the department offices. The City of Los
Angeles was the only city that provided seminars for this group. Table 24 shows that
033 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

interviewees mostly believe that their clients were not prepared when the code was
launched (January 1, 2010), and that even after two year of CALGreen enforcement, their
clients were still not well prepared.
Table 24
Interviewees Response to How Well Prepared Were the Local Design and Construction
Professionals to Address CALGreen on Their Projects When the Code Launched on
January First 2011 and Now

City
How well prepared were the local builders
to address CALGreen on their projects
when the code launched on Jan 1 2011
How well prepared are
builders to address CALGreen
on their projects now
1 Alhambra Not at All prepared Somewhat prepared
2 Burbank Somewhat prepared Prepared
3 Calabasas Extremely Well Prepared Very Well Prepared
4 Cudahy Prepared Very Well Prepared
5 Glendale Somewhat prepared Somewhat Prepared
6 Huntington Park Not at All prepared Somewhat Prepared
7 Inglewood Not at All prepared Still not Prepared
8 Los Angeles Somewhat prepared Well Prepared
9 San Gabriel Somewhat prepared Prepared
10 Santa Clarita Rarely prepared Still not Prepared
11 Santa Monica Somewhat prepared Prepared
12 South Pasadena Not at All prepared Somewhat Prepared
13 Temple City Not at All prepared Somewhat Prepared

Process of plan checking and inspection of CALGreen codes. In all cities, the
plan checkers and inspectors work on the CALGreen and other codes simultaneously, and
034 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

do not have specialized plan checker or inspectors for CALGreen compliance alone. The
city of Los Angeles is an exception; the city has a specific division dedicated to
CALGreen plan checking and inspection. The City of Los Angeles receives an extra set
of documents for CALGreen plan checking and reviews them in its division office while
other sets of documents are checked for other codes compliance. In this city, CALGreen
inspectors inspect on a separate schedule and only for CALGreen requirements. None of
the cities asks for third party inspection as a requirement for CALGreen codes compliance.
Table 25 lists the plan checkers and inspectors in every sample cities. Due to budget
limitation, it is common in small cites to have a third party for plan checking and
inspection. However, when a city has a sufficient budget and has a sufficient number of
projects, the city may prefer to handle these activities within the city. A comparison of
two small cities like Calabasas and Cudahy (both cities with populations around 23,000-
24,000) is case in point. The city of Cudahy has left the city plan checking responsibility
to several third party companies and has one inspector in the city, whereas the city of
Calabasas has five inspectors. The City of San Gabriel is another example. The load of
the construction jobs is extraordinary for a city of less than 40,000. In the past two years,
the city has reviewed 100-150 projects reviewing for CALGreen code compliance and
almost 45% of them were new construction or reconstructed projects. Even with the
highest rate of plan checkers and inspectors per capita among sample cities, because of
the extreme workload, this city often must send out the job to third party consultants. In
comparison, The City of Alhambra with more than twice population (83,089 versus
39,718), almost twice area (7.6 versus 4.13 square miles), similar household median
income ($51,527 versus $56,720), and located nearly within the same San Gabriel Valley,
035 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

has left the entire building department function to a third party. Furthermore, in the past
two years, its workload for CALGreen code compliance was less than a quarter of the
experienced in the City of San Gabriel.
Table 25
Number of Plan Checkers and Inspectors in Sample Cities

City Plan
Checker
Inspectors Total
2010
Population
Population/Plan
checker &
Inspectors
1 Alhambra Third Party 0 83,089 -
2 Burbank 3 5 8 103,340 13,000
3 Calabasas 1 5 6 23,058 3,800
4 Cudahy Third Party 1 1 23,805 -
5 Glendale 5 12 17 191,719 11,000
6 Huntington Park Third Party 0

58,114 -
7 Inglewood 3 4 7 109,673 15,700
8 Los Angeles 8-9 7 15-16 3,792,621 240,000*
9 San Gabriel 3 2-3 5-6 39,718 7,300
10 Santa Clarita 5 7 12 176,320 14,700
11 Santa Monica 7 11 18 89,736 5,000
12 South Pasadena Third Party 0 25,619 -
13 Temple City Third Party 0 35,558 -
* = This number is only for CALGreen plan checker and inspectors in the city of Los Angeles
Table 26 shows the projects that have been reviewed for CALGreen code
compliance in sample cities. The table shows that there is no correlation between city
population or city median household income and the quantity of projects that were
reviewed in each city. Many factors may affect the quantity of construction projects in a
036 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

city and it changes case by case. For example in the city of Los Angeles, the size of the
city and population is the most important factor that explains the high quantity of its
construction projects. The city of Santa Monica, on the other hand is a very active and
progressive city that make the city appropriate for the investment. The city of Calabasas
while is a small city, any change in a building needs a city permit and that increases the
amount of the city projects and consequently plan checkers and inspectors. Staff of cities
with a larger ratio of population to the reviewed projects or on the other hand, cities with
a more active construction market were more aware of green policies and supported
CALGreen. They seemed more confident that new building policies would not push the
building investors out of the city and somehow might bring the city a green fame.
Budgeting and associated fee for CALGreen plan checking and inspection.
Plan checking and inspecting for CALGreen code compliance requires both training and
extra processing time. By mandating these codes, it was expected that the impacted city
departments would receive budget increases to facilitate the training process and project
review. However, due to the economic crisis and recession, most cities not only did not
receive extra budget but instead experienced significant budget cuts. These budget cuts
were one of the reasons that these cities could not provide organized training.
Furthermore, staff had to spend extra time reviewing the projects for CALGreen codes.
At the same time budget cut, layoffs, and hire freezes limited available staff and available
staff time. Raising plan check and/or permit fees was a possible solution to limited city
resources for these expenses; however, many cities were afraid to increase fees for fear of
losing their clients especially large size building companies.

037 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 26
Number of Residential and Nonresidential Building Reviewed for CALGreen Codes in
Sample Cities

City Residential Nonresidential Total
2010
Population
Median
household
income
2010
Population/
project
1 Alhambra 18 7 25 83,089 51,527 3,300
2 Burbank 26 15 41 103,340 63,356 2,500
3 Calabasas n.d. n.d. n.d. 23,058 116,403 N/A
4 Cudahy 3-4 1 5-6 23,805 41,805 4,000
5 Glendale n.d. n.d. n.d. 191,719 54,677 N/A
6 Huntington
Park
0 0 0 58,114 37,224 N/A
7 Inglewood 1(145
units)
1 2 109,673 43,460 55,000
8 Los Angeles 15,000 22,000 37,000 3,792,621 49,138 100
9 San Gabriel
n.d. n.d.
100-
150
39,718 56,720 390-270
10 Santa
Clarita
3-4 15-20 18-24 176,320 82,642 7350
11 Santa
Monica
61 127 188 89,736 68,842 500
12 South
Pasadena
13 0 13 25,619 82,340 2000
13 Temple
City
n.d. n.d. n.d. 35,558 65,668 N/A
Note. N/A = Not Applicable, n.d. = no data

038 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 27
Budgeting and Associated Fee for CALGreen Plan Checking and Inspection

City
Did your
departmen
t receive a
budget
increase?
How the
CALGreen plan
checking
increases the
overall plan
checking time
How the
CALGreen
inspection
increases the
overall
inspection time
What is the
fee for
CALGreen
codes plan
checking?
What is the fee
for CALGreen
codes
Inspection?
1 Alhambra No 10% 10% 0 0
2 Burbank No 5-15% 5-10% 0 0
3 Calabasas No 1% 0 0 0
4 Cudahy No n.d. 2% 0 0
5 Glendale
20%
*

5% n.d. 20% 20%
6
Huntington
Park
No 10% 10% 0 0
7 Inglewood No 20% Less than 5% 0 0
8 Los Angeles 2-3% 10% 10%
10%+5%
more for Tier
1
10%+5% more
for Tier 1
9 San Gabriel No 2% 1-2% 0 0
10
Santa
Clarita
No 3-5% Less than 5% 0 0
11
Santa
Monica
No 10% 0 10% ±5%
12
South
Pasadena
No 10% 10% 0 0
13
Temple
City
No 10% 10% 0 0
Note.
*
=Indirectly from the surcharge of plan checking and inspection, n.d. = no data
Even though there is no specific metric to measure how extensively and
effectively CALGreen codes are implemented, from interviewing different city staff
members, it was clear that cities approach CALGreen codes differently. Some cities such
039 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

as Los Angeles consider these codes an important part of their departmental function,
while others appear to take the codes less seriously. The variety of responses to the
questions “how the CALGreen plan checking/inspection increase the overall plan
checking/ inspection time” partially illustrates the variety in local approaches to these
codes. Different factors influence the time that cities spend on plan checking and
inspecting CALGreen codes. The most important ones are (a) the cities’ approach and
(b) adopted green ordinances. Some cities, because of the additional ordinances adopted
above the mandatory codes, must spend more time on plan checking and/or inspection.
Therefore, it would be reasonable that these cities evaluate the required time for
reviewing these code more than other cities. However, there is no correlation between
the cities that have adopted green ordinances such as Calabasas, Glendale, or Los Angles
and their estimations of the time spent on reviewing these codes. It was observed that in
some cities it appears that there is a motivation to justify increasing related fees. Since
the plan checking and permit fee in most of the cities is a percent of estimated cost or per
building square footage, for the cities that pay the same way to the third party companies,
adopting new codes has no impact on their workload or budget.
Adopted green ordinance and plans for future green ordinances. Of the sample
cities, four of them, Calabasas, Glendale, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica, have adopted
green ordinances above the CALGreen mandatory measures. Nevertheless, these cities’
approaches to the adopted green ordinances are completely different.
1- City of Calabasas. This city has adopted a point base system according to
project size. The city has divided projects to three groups, very small, small, and
medium. Every project should achieve .5, 2.0, or 12 points from a list of voluntary
041 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

measures. Furthermore all new nonresidential development over 5000 square feet should
achieve the equivalent of the LEED Certified or Silver rating system. Exceeding 15%
energy efficiency above the California Energy Code requirements for all new residential
and nonresidential constructions is required.
2- City of Glendale. This city has adopted 12 measures that main ordinances
include: adopting the CALGreen codes for all residential building, exceeding 15% energy
efficiency above the Title 24 energy code, solar ready buildings, and requiring CAL Green
Tier 1 for new single ‐family home larger than 5,000 square feet.
3- City of Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles has developed “Los Angeles
Green Building Code Ordinance (LAGreen)” which covers all scope of CALGreen’s
mandatory measures and has more requirements. It also has new ordinances for not only
residential and nonresidential buildings, but also for all additions and alterations over
$200,000 in valuation. It includes mandatory and voluntary measures for four groups of
construction: “newly constructed low-rise residential buildings”, “newly constructed
nonresidential and high-rise residential buildings”, “alterations and additions to low-rise
residential buildings”, and “additions and alterations to nonresidential and high-rise
residential buildings”. It not only includes high-rise residential buildings, additions, and
alterations to CALGreen codes, but also has developed special series of codes especially
for additions and alterations. The adopted ordinances, however, are not comparable to
those of the city of Calabasas or Glendale. The city of Los Angeles does not ask for
exceeding energy efficiency above the California requirements and neither LEED nor Tier 1
is required. The city offers density bonuses to projects for meeting Tier 1 requirements.
Other ordinances include solar ready, requirements for energy efficiency gas-fired
040 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

heating, electric heat pumps, cooling, tank type and tankless water heaters, duct leakage,
building lighting in kitchen and bathrooms, and swimming pool recirculating pumps.
4- City of Santa Monica. Despite having a set of restrictive green codes in place
well before adopting CALGreen codes, the city has not adopted very restricted
ordinances above CALGreen mandatory measures. The main adopted ordinance is
expanding applicability of CALGreen codes to “three to six” story residential buildings.
CALGreen tiers adoption. Almost none of the cities planned to voluntarily adopt
any of the tiers or even part of the tiers. Since the state is expected to review and revise
the codes every three years, and cities must then have to adopt the new amendments, they
prefer to follow the state on these changes. The state has already released the draft
version of 2013 CALGreen, scheduled to go into effect January 2014. The code is
expected to be officially published July 2012, and the changes to the current codes this
time appear to be limited (Scott, 2013).
The only exception is the city of Cudahy’s plan to adopt Los Angeles County
CALGreen version. Los Angeles County has adopted some of the voluntary measures of
CALGreen including adoption of Tier 1 for nonresidential buildings and for residential
buildings of greater than four units. The city of Cudahy expects to adopt more restricted
codes, and plans to increase the plan checking and inspection fee in this way. On the
other hand, by adopting the county regulation the cities can avoid the state required
documentation.
Exceeding energy efficiency above the Title 24 code. Several cities, including
City of Los Angeles, attempted to adopt energy code to exceed 15% energy efficiency
above the California Energy Code requirements. However, the California Energy
042 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Commission requires a cost effectiveness analysis for justifying the additional standard.
City of Glendale was the only city among interviewees that claimed that the required
analysis had been done, and since August 2012, has legally adopted the 15% energy
efficiency. The name of the City of Calabasas, despite exceeding 15% energy efficiency
above Title 24, is not listed in the California Energy Commission permissions (California
Energy Commission, 2012).
Green programs for existing buildings. None of the cities had any green
ordinances for existing buildings. Several cities have rebate and internal incentives for
home improvement. For example, city of Glendale Water and Power (GWP) offers
rebates on ENERGY STAR products, solar attic fans, high efficiency toilets, high
efficiency pool pump, and solar panels. Calabasas also has a series of rebates and tax
credits for homes, including rebates for wall insulation, attic insulation, and energy
efficient air conditioners. The city offers them through Southern California Edison, U.S.
Department of Energy, and Southern California Gas Company. The City of Burbank has
some energy rebate programs through Burbank Water and Power. The City of Los
Angeles has also rebates and tax credits. The City of Santa Monica has landscape
rebates. Other cities may have limited rebate programs through the electricity company
like Edison or Los Angeles County rebate and incentive programs. However, except for
the city of Calabasas, Burbank, and Glendale, no other city considered these rebates and
incentive as green program for existing buildings. Those cities with a local water and
power provider can more easily offer rebates, such as in the case for cities like Burbank
and Glendale. However, a background in practicing green policies is an important factor
in a city’s ability to plan and provide these incentives. These examples were observed in
043 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

all cities which had adopted green ordinances prior to CALGreen adoption such as
Calabasas, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, and Glendale.
Expedited services for LEED registered projects. Some of the cities, such as
City of Los Angeles, previously provided expedited services to LEED pursuing projects.
With the exception of the City of Santa Monica, none of the sample cities provides this
service. The City of Santa Monica expedites plan review for projects pursuing LEED
Silver or higher.
Prescriptive versus performance base codes. Due to the concerns about these
codes which are prescriptive compared to energy efficiency codes such as ASHRAE
(American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineer) codes,
interviewees were asked whether these codes are different from other building codes in
this manner and if they had received any complaints (Tweed, 2011). All of the city
authorities interviewed believed that prescriptive codes are preferred not only by city plan
checkers and inspectors but also by their customers. They reported that they had never
received any complaints about prescriptive codes, including CALGreen.
What facilitates adoption of higher levels of CALGreen codes? Interviewees in
five cities opined that adopting higher level of CALGreen requires additional resources
and staffing. In two cites, interviewees stated that incentives facilitate adoption of higher
levels of CALGreen, and in two cities, interviewees talked about public support and
community education. No specific patterns were found for interviewees’ responses.
Statewide building codes versus city codes. All city authorities supported the
statewide building codes. They believed that the statewide code brings consistency and
some level of safety for all cities, and by contrast, inconsistent standards can confuse
044 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

customers. Several of them supported the possibility of adopting local ordinances in
addition to the statewide codes.
Enthusiasm and concerns for CALGreen among design and construction
professionals. Almost all interviewees stated that their clients had a neutral reaction to
the codes. One of them expressed 85% support and two interviewees said that they have
heard complaints about the codes. The complaints were about the cost and lack of
benefits. The neutral reaction shows that building professionals have accepted the code
like other codes. As they must comply with codes, they do not enthusiastically support
additional restrictions.
CALGreen implementation challenges. Many interviewees, especially in the
cities that only adopted mandatory measures of CALGreen, claimed that at this level of
adoption there is no remaining challenge, but if they are asked to review projects for
amendments such as Tier 1 and 2 requirements, limited city budget and staffing will be a
serious challenge. Three cities still saw the first challenge to be budget and staffing
limitations, two cites reported unwillingness to accept code by the design and
construction industry, and one of them noted the difficulty in staff understanding
CALGreen requirements. There was no specific pattern between interviewees on their
response to this question, except that none of the interviewees mentioned unwillingness
of departmental staff to embrace the code to be a challenge in implementing codes. Most
interviewees estimated the level of effort required implementing CALGreen as moderate;
one estimated it at no additional effort; one estimated it no additional effort to moderate; and
one estimated it to be moderate to significant.
As it was mentioned earlier, Green Code Pro conducted a survey after one year of
CALGreen launching. The results of this survey support the outcome of interviews:
045 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

In general, the survey showed that smaller jurisdictions have experienced many
challenges in implementing CALGreen due to lack of staff and resources. Due to
the economy, many jurisdictions have not had any new projects that would even
be subject to the code so they have little to no experience with it yet. On the other
end of the spectrum are the larger jurisdictions or those with pre-existing green
building requirements. Those cities and counties have successfully implemented
CALGreen on a number of projects. (Green Code Pro, 2012)
Possibility of adopting statewide green codes in other states. When the city
authorities were asked if they thought that other states might follow the California in
adopting statewide green codes, all agreed that it would happen. However, several of
them cautioned that because of the economic crisis it might not happen in the near future.
Several of the interviewees referred to the International Green Construction Code (IgCC)
that has already adopted by several states. The International Construction Code (ICC)
has developed a set of green codes and some believe that California will replace
CALGreen with IgCC (Cooknick, 2012).
How do you look at CALGreen codes? The last question was about the lesson
learned from implementation of CALGreen codes and this question was intended for the
understanding of their approaches to these codes. The most and significant agreement
was on the small steps on starting these codes. If the interviewees were for or against the
codes, they did not wish to have more restricted codes. Two of the interviewees stated a
paradigm shift in the building industry and building codes, the change that does not look
at buildings as only a construction subject but a living space. Interestingly, these two
interviewees had two different opinions; one believed that mandating the green code was
046 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

an ice breaking effort toward sustainable buildings and this shift had happened in the
right moment. The other believed that building regulation was not an appropriate bed for
this shift. He claimed that the building regulation is changing to a different level from its
past path. The building codes in the past were more regulations about being safe,
functional, and pleasant. Now we are talking about the environmental impact of
buildings and looking for net zero building to last longer. Twenty years ago, no one
considered the fact that materials are shipped from somewhere else might have negative
impact on environment. People are more aware of environmental issues now, but
imposing them on building codes may not be an appropriate solution. Another
interviewee also mentioned the impact of enforcing these codes at the people level of
awareness about the environmental issues.
One of the interviewees believed that change took time and resources as people
were familiarizing themselves with new codes. Another interviewee believes that
CALGreen is a small step, but integrating all these small steps makes a change possible.
One of the interviewees believed that preparation was the key and another one
that stat agency involvement helped a lot to prepare guidelines and make it easy to
understand. This interviewee claimed that surprisingly the state for enforcing CALGreen
codes was more prepared than any other codes. The interviewee explained that
environmental issues are hard to understand and the state worked with jurisdictions
towards the end. Other interviewees echoed this sentiment, and said the codes seemed
more complicated at first but they were not truly complicated if simply guidelines were
followed.
047 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

One of the interviewees stated that even though the goal of these codes was
acceptable, the ultimate result did not always match the efforts and the objectives.
Finally, an interviewee thought that local amendments should not be a political issue and
an item of competition with other cities. Adoption should happen gradually and be
driven by experts in the field.
IV.3 Summary
This chapter reviewed the data of interviews that conducted to study the
CALGreen code in practice. To this end, the staff of several cities in the Los Angeles
County were interviewed. Interviewees represented a wide range of variety in their
interest in the codes. On one side of this range, some look at these codes as a set of
documentation, while on the other side these green codes are considered as essential as
other building codes. Enforcing CALGreen is a paradigm shift in building codes, a
shifting from looking at buildings as of a construction point of view, to as elements of the
city as a live organism. Those cities that had already adopted green and sustainable
ordinances not only had taken CALGreen codes more seriously but also had adopted
additional ordinances. Neither size, population, median household income, nor home
ownership rate of the city is a decisive factor in differences in these approaches. A
combination of city atmosphere, active citizens, job diversities, and city leaders lead
cities toward sustainability. An important factor is the city background in sustainability
and green ordinance adoption. Those cities that had already adopted green and
sustainable ordinances not only had taken CALGreen codes seriously but also had
adopted additional ordinances. As Kontokosta (2012), who had analyzed green policies
048 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

of many cities suggests, “A city that previously adopted a sustainability or climate action
plan is more likely to adopt a green building policy” (p. 79). Most cites had adopted only
CALGreen mandatory measures and very few of cites had a plan to adopt voluntary
measures. Those cities that have adopted additional ordinances tried not to backtrack on
their prior achievements.
Mandating the CALGreen codes by the State was an important step toward
sustainability in cities. Neighboring green cities had no effect on non-green cities.
Evidently some of the cites might not voluntary adopt any green codes because of the
shortage of resources. Enforcing these codes pushed these cities towards sustainability,
however many of the cities’ code officials were not prepared to enforce them.

049 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Chapter Five: Learning from the Diffusion of Innovation
Theory
The focus of this chapter is a study of the foundations of diffusion of innovation
theory to understand the success and failures of attempt to promote sustainable policies
and especially CALGreen in practice. The study first identifies the theory, the history of
the theory, the key elements in diffusion research, the adoption process or five stages of
diffusion, what influences the diffusion process, characteristics of the innovation and
adopters, and the success and failures of this theory. Since CALGreen has been launched
for a limited time, evaluating its adoption by other states empirically is hardly
researchable. The diffusion of innovation theory principles will be followed to
investigate the possibility of employing it to discuss the future prospects of sustainable
policies such as CALGreen codes adopting.
V.1 Introduction and History of the Theory
“Getting a new idea adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is difficult”
(Rogers, 1983, p. 1).
Assessing sustainability of buildings and communities is a very recent
phenomenon; however, the idea has spread rapidly throughout the world. As discussed
earlier, in 2003, the first in use version of Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED), a green building rating system, was launched in the U.S. Nowadays
numerous voluntary and mandatory compliance and incentive based rating systems,
products, and technologies are available. This rating system and other similar rating
051 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

systems shaped the green building and community codes of today. CALGreen is one of
the most developed, most important, and most widespread green building codes. To
understand how the idea of green building policy has been spread, how its growth can be
continued, and how it will be possible to evaluate its success requires a discussion of the
ways that new ideas spread and are applied to practice.
Diffusion of Innovation theory explains why and how a new idea or technology
spreads within and between communities. Valente (2010) explains “new ideas and
practices spread through an interpersonal contact” of a network (p. 172). More than
5,000 applications of this theory in various fields were claimed through 2002. Decades
after the diffusion of innovations theory originated, it remains a popular theory in many
disciplines (Sharma & Kanekar, 2008).
Rogers, the father of diffusion of innovation theory, published his first book in the
1960s and since its publication as a methodology, diffusion studies have become
common in disciplinary and interdisciplinary research. Rogers (1983) distinguishes three
foundations for the model of diffusion: (a) Gabriel Tarde, (b) Georg Simmel, and (c)
Austrian-German and British diffusionists. Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904), the French
sociologist, was the first to study the concept. As a lawyer, Tarde was interested in the
psychological concept of criminal behavior. He believed that diffusion is a social process
of interpersonal communication networks; however, he used the word “imitation” as the
innovation adoption. German sociologist, Georg Simmel, who lived at the same time,
developed the concept of “stranger” in a system, which later was used by scholars to
explain social distance, heterophily, cosmopolitanism, and the notion of network analysis.
The third group Austrian-German and British anthropologists, were named diffusionists
050 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

since for the first time they used diffusion as a term. Diffusionists in the early twenty
century tried to explain all community changes by this theory. Anthropologists and
especially American academicians eagerly followed European diffusionists. Ryan and
Gross investigated the hybrid seed diffusion in Iowa in the early 1920s. It was the start of
one of the most famous series of researches, when during 1940 and 1950s, different
academic disciplines explained the spread of new ideas through diffusion of innovation
theory. However, it was Rogers who for the first time in 1962 published a literature
review of a comprehensive theory of how innovations diffuse or spread in a social
system. The book’s appeal was global. In this period, Rogers (1983) identifies nine
disciplines that used the theory: anthropology, early sociology, rural sociology,
education, public health, communication, marketing, geography, and general sociology.
“By the mid-1960s, the formerly impermeable boundaries between the diffusion research
traditions began to break down…. This trend toward a more unified and cross-
disciplinary viewpoint in diffusion research has continued until today” (Rogers, 1983, p.
39). Even though the theory was implemented long before 1960 in rural sociology, a
drug research by Coleman, Manzel, and Katz in 1957 was a major turning point for the
theory to be applied into all social science disciplines at U.S. (Valente & Rogers, 1995).
V.2: Key Elements in Diffusion
Rogers (1983) describes four main elements (an innovation, communication
channels, time, and a social system) in the theory: “Diffusion is the process by which an
innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a
052 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

social system” (p. 5). According to Valente, the five main elements of the diffusion
model are:
(1) Perceived characteristics of the innovation affect its rate of adoption; (2)
diffusion occurs over time so that rate of adoption often yields a cumulate
adoption S-shape pattern with individuals are classified as early or late adopters;
(3) individuals pass through stages during the adoption process typically classified
as knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation; (4) people
can modify the innovation and sometimes discontinue its use; and (5)
mathematical models can be developed to measure the rate and character of
diffusion curves. (Valente, 2010, p. 195)
The diffusion process generally follows an S-shape curve over time (see Figure
10). The curve illustrates a slow and initial growing adoption process by innovators, then
a faster adoption by early adopters, following very fast adoption process to reach to the
peak point by early majority adopters (Rice, 2001). “…’take off’ in the s-curve of
adoption began to occur when the opinion leaders in a system used the new idea”
(Rogers, 1983, p. 41). From the peak point, late majority adopters follow early majority
and adoption process ends by laggard group. The diffusion curve is divided and
portioned by different types of adopters.
In 1958, Rogers empirically standardized the innovativeness of individuals and
social systems and organized it into adopter categories. Adopter categories are a
descriptive method for classifying the members of a system based on their
adoption of new innovations in relation to their peers. In a normal-frequency
distribution, there are five adopter categories: innovators (2.5%), early adopters
053 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

(13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%), and laggards (16%). (Rabina
& Walczyk, 2007, p. 5)

Figure 10. A Supposed Case of Standard Rogers S-curve for Diffusion of Innovation
1-Innovators. The first adopters, about 2.5 percent, are innovators. They are
highly motivated to learn on their own rather than from their peers.
2- Early-adopters. Next, about 13.5 percent are the early adopters (opinion
leaders, key location in social networks or may be in positions of leadership, power, or
influence such as professors). The first and second groups of adaptors consist of people
who are looking for uniqueness; they are resourceful and might have a relatively high
level of education and income.
Unlike innovators, early adopters tend to be interested in the extrinsic reward, the
admiration that early adoption will bring from their peers. Because they tend to
be opinion leaders, by their adoption or nonadoption early adopters serve as the
Adopters per time
unit
All adopters
including
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Innovators
2.5%
Early Adopters
13.5%
Early Majority
34%
Late Majority
34%
Laggards
16%
Adopters
054 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

tipping point for the eventual success or failure of new innovations. (Rabina &
Walczyk, 2007, p. 5).
3-Early majority. The group called the early majority makes up 34 percent and
almost half of the mass audience. They are not opinion leaders; rather their adoption
reflects the mainstream attitude toward the innovation.
4-Late majority. Late majority is the next adopter group and again makes up 34
percent of the total. This last half of mass audience is driven by financial motivation or
their coterie encouragement (Rogers, 1983, p. 250).
5-Laggard. The final 16% are laggards, last to adopt the innovation and resistant
to change. “By looking to the past as a framework for coping with change, laggards tend
to justify their opposition to new innovations by stating their continued happiness with
things the way they currently are or have always been” (Rabina & Walczyk, 2007, p. 6).
In explaining how social network affect diffusion of innovation, Valente (2010)
suggests four major classes of diffusion model (p. 179).
1- Integration/opinion leadership. In this model, diffusion is implemented by
leaders who have strong ties with their community. However opinion leaders are not
necessarily early adopters; they need to reflect the norms of their community to preserve
their positions. Their role in adopting an innovation accelerates the process of adoption.
2- Structural model. This model follows the diffusion that happens by weak ties
in a network. The weak ties are less trusted in their close relationships and their strength
is in information diffusion in a community or macro-level rather than to individual
behavioral adoption at a micro-level (Valente, p. 182). “The ‘strength of weak ties’ as
one of the hypotheses about how network structure affects diffusion predicts that
055 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

networks with many ‘long ties’ will spread a social behavior farther and more quickly
than a network in which ties are highly clustered” (Centola, 2010, p. 1194).
3- Critical level. In this model, tipping points or critical levels cause the diffusion
to happen. This may be on a macro- or micro-level and the critical mass, an individual,
or a society will be pushed towards adoption.
4-Dynamic Models. In this model, the diffusion process is studied over different
periods of adoption. According to this model, a person or society will be exposed to an
innovation many times. As the network changes, more adopters are exposed to potential
adopters, and the adoption process spreads. Therefore, the network change will change
the diffusion and adoption.
According to the definition of adopters groups and diffusion models, every person
or society has a threshold of or for adoption. Once they reach that threshold, adoption
will occur. Innovators and early adopters have a low threshold; meanings that they adopt
an innovation sooner than others do. Late adopters, by contrast, have a high threshold.
As more people adopt an innovation, those with a higher threshold are more likely to
adopt. Therefore, identifying those with a lower threshold and exposing them to an
innovation accelerate adoption process (Rice, 2001, p. 248).
V.3: Adoption Process and Factors Influence the Diffusion Process
One of the main components of Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory is the
innovation-decision process. Rogers (1983) enumerates five steps for innovation
decision making: “(1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation, and
(5) confirmation” (p. 20). When an innovation occurs, it is spread through different
056 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

communication channels. Rogers concludes that the evaluation of an innovation rarely
happens by scientific investigation instead, people tend to follow their peers (1983, p.
20).
1- Knowledge/innovation development. In this step, an individual or a
community is exposed to an innovation. They passively or actively may gain awareness
but still they are not inspired by the innovation. If they later find the innovation relevant
to their situation, they go to the next step.
2- Persuasion/Dissemination. In this stage, potential adaptors actively search for
information about an innovation. Mass media, which can be considered an important
source of information in knowledge development step, in this stage, is viewed very
general and not personal. People in this stage seek information from their near-peer
groups. “At the persuasion stage in the innovation-decision process the individual forms
a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation” (Rogers, p. 169).
3- Decision. In this stage, people adopt or reject an innovation by evaluating the
anticipated advantages or disadvantages. In the innovation-decision process, rejection is
as possible as adoption. The rejection may have two forms: active rejection after
evaluating the innovation, or passive rejection by ignoring or not considering the
innovation (Rogers, p. 173).
4- Implementation. In this stage, the adopters practically employ an innovation.
In the steps before the implementation, individuals mentally engage, and implementation
is a practical step. Rogers states that the process of implementation for an organization is
much more problematic than individual implementation, since individuals in an
organization may resist the adoption process (Rogers, p. 174).
057 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

5- Confirmation/Maintenance. In this stage, adopters continue to seek
information about the adopted innovation to confirm the decision or revise it if there is
conflict.
Rogers notes that the social system may not only influence individuals in the
decision making process through its communication channels, but may also lead
individuals to an adoption process by a collective or authority decision. He categorized
types of innovation decisions as (1) Optional innovation-decisions, (2) Collective
innovation-decisions, and (3) Authority innovation-decisions. In optional innovation-
decision, individuals may personally adopt or reject an innovation and are responsible for
their choice. However, in the others, collective and authority innovation decisions, each
individual must conform to the decision regardless of his or her agreement with the
decision. The difference between collective and authority decision making is that in the
collective decision, the process incorporates the participation of members of a community
or organization by consensus and therefore, individuals have some influence. In an
authority adoption decision, the few in power make the decision and other have rarely
any direct influence (Rogers, pp. 29-30). Adopting a city code is an authority decision
making.
Since the innovation adoption in a community or organization follows collective
or authority innovation-decisions, its process, despite many similarities, is slightly
different from the individual process. The process contains five stages: agenda-setting,
matching, redefining/restructuring, clarifying, and routinizing.
1-Agenda-setting. Agenda-setting is not a step only for the adoption process but
is a ongoing and continuously process in every organization. However, in the adoption
058 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

process, the organization opportunistically looks for new ideas which might benefit the
organization.
2-Matching. Comparing and evaluating the problem and the innovation occurs in
this stage, which is to determine how the solution matches the problem.
3-Redefining/Restructuring. In this stage, the organization becomes familiar
with the innovation and if it does not exactly fit the organization’s needs would begin a
reconstruction process. Sometimes the process of redefining can be revised. The
innovation causes the organization to re-certify itself.
4-Clarifying. At this stage, the innovation is employed. The organization and
more of its members put the idea into focus.
5-Routinization. In this step, the innovation has become the organization routine.
According to Rogers’s theory, aside from the adopter traits, characteristics of an
innovation influence the diffusion process and its rate of diffusion. As Perry says,
“Different innovations have different probabilities of adoption and hence, different
adoption rates” (2000, p. 716). Characteristics that influence the likelihood of diffusion
rate of an innovation are:
1- Relative advantage. This explains the degree to which a new idea is an
improvement over the existing situation. Although economic superiority is an important
factor, “social-prestige factors, convenience, and satisfaction are also often important
components” (Rogers, p. 15).
2- Compatibility. Compatibility refers to the degree to which a new idea is
consistent with the dominant adopter’s societal norms and values.
059 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

3-Complexity. Complexity refers to the degree to which a new idea is user-
friendly and understandable for most members of the intended social system.
4-Trialibility. Trialibility refers to the degree to which new idea can be
experienced before adoption.
5-Observability. Observability refers the degree to which the results and benefits
of adopting a new idea are observable. “If the benefits of an innovation are easily
identified and visible to others, it will be adopted more easily” (Oldenburg & Glanz,
2008, p. 320).
Getting back to the Rogers definition of diffusion, that it “is the process by which
an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members
of a social system” (p. 5); three other factors affect the diffusion process. These are
communication channels, time, and the social system.
V.4: Theory Successes and Limitations
The theory of diffusion of innovation tries to explain changes and processes in the
most complex systems: human communities. The characteristics of these systems are the
most important determinant of its success or failures. Allenby (1999) argues that
evolution of a complex system involves three factors:
(1) an information storage and transmission mechanism, which is subject to and
can capture (2) mutations, which are simply new alternatives for the agents within
the system, and are themselves sieved by a (3) selection process reflecting internal
states and external boundary conditions. (p. 138)
061 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Allenby explains complex systems as cyclic, decentralized, not predictable,
discontinuous, dynamic, and without a defined endpoint (1999, p. 135). He adds that,
unlike simple systems, complex systems will not return to equilibrium if disturbed.
Valente (2010) suggests that are three main limitations of the diffusion of
innovation theory. First, he argues that since diffusion occurs through a social network,
much data from that network along the time must be gathered. However following the
network over the time is a difficult job. Second, he points out that the theory focuses on
networking, while exactly how individuals may change their behavior is not clear. As a
third limitation, he suggests that the theory investigates how the network influences the
diffusion; however, more study is required to investigate how diffusion or behavioral
change may affect the network (p. 194). Predicting the change in a community is
complicated, since many factors are involved both mentally and practically. These
factors limit the community’s harmonized movement, while individually change might be
much easier. According to Symes and Pauwels “The diffusion process is a social one,
and in the case of urban design, intimately connected with specific personalities, with
local partnerships and particular methods of practice management” (1999, p. 100).
Rice (2001) names the different factors that may influence the diffusion when an
organization is involved as:
Justification for the initial agenda rationale; the geographic location and closeness
of potential adopters; the complexity, size, and culture of the organization; the
personalities and power bases of the organizational actors; changes in political
agendas, resources, and goals that affect the nature and evaluation of the
innovation; different stakeholders becoming activated by different stages in the
060 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

lifecycle of the innovation; external organizational environments, including
changing competitors, regulatory environments, economic resources; and
technological changes, rendering a current innovation incompatible or
inappropriate. (p. 249)
Valente (2010) argues adoption is not a homogenous mode for three reasons; first
“people do not interact randomly”; Second, interaction does not follow the same model
for everyone as some may be more adaptable than others, and third, media sometimes is
more influential than interaction. Some scholars believe that the related information
about surrounding communities can affect people’s choices towards a more sustainable
life style (p. 177). In their research on a an environmental conservation program between
hotel’s travelers claimed, Goldstein and Cialdini concluded that “managers, policy
makers, and communicators implementing a descriptive normative component to their
persuasive appeals or information campaigns should ensure that the norms of the
reference group are as situationally similar as possible to the intended audience’s
circumstances or environment” (Goldstein & Cialdini, 2008, p. 480).
Orlandi et al. (1990) report that the gap between the point where innovation-
development ends and diffusion planning begins often leaves unfilled and causes many
innovations ultimately fail. This gap occurs when there is not an effective transfer of
information from the resource/developers/innovators to the user(s). Oldenburg and Glanz
(2008) suggest that the history of innovation proves the gap between innovation in study
and practice. For example, the effectiveness of citrus juice which was known in 1601
was not added to sailors’ diet until 1795 (p. 313). Valente names the gap between
062 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

awareness and adoption KAP-gap (Knowledge Attitude Practice gap) and believes
“reducing this gap is a goal of many interventions” (1996, p. 31).
Orlandi and colleagues refer to the required linkage between recourse systems
that develop and promote the innovation and the user systems, which are supposed to
adopt the innovation. (Orlandi, landers, Weston, & Haley, 1990). “The linkage serves a
dual purpose: to enable collaboratively developed user-relevant health education
programs and to accomplish program adoption and implementation” (Bartholomew,
Parcel, Kok, & Gottlieb, 2006, p. 448).
Murray (2009) considers six steps for researchers to guarantee their findings will
be valued in practice by practitioners according to diffusion of innovation theory:
First, researchers should study relevant topics and innovations. Second,
researchers should use appropriate communication channels for sharing their
findings with practitioners. Third, researchers should consider the consequences
of their innovative ideas and practices. Fourth, researchers should provide
flexibility for their innovations to be reinvented by practitioners. Fifth,
researchers should examine and study the diffusion process within the counseling
profession to learn about how practitioners make their decisions about adopting
innovations. Finally, researchers should respect and seek out the knowledge of
practitioners. (p. 115)
Valente (2010) argues that engaging in a behavior because of following peers is
presumed in both diffusion of innovation and social learning theories. However, he
suggests that another approach to the behavior adoption is that people choose their
063 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

friends based on behavioral similarity. He then refers several researches that have
suggested the role of both influence and selection in behavioral acceptance (p. 33).
By the end, it should not be forgotten that adoption of a particular innovation has
both positive and negative outcomes. Rogers (1983) states that consequences of an
adoption are not studied sufficiently. One of the main reasons is that agents of change
over emphasize the positive effects. He argues that the consequences of an adoption
might be desirable or undesirable, direct or indirect, and anticipated or unanticipated.
While the usual survey methods are inappropriate to study the consequences, measuring
them is hard as well (p. 410).
V.5: Theory Implementation in Green Building Policies
The theory of diffusion of innovations was not varied across multiple disciplines
until the 1960s. Rogers (2002) reminds us that although “there are examples of
applications of diffusion theory in public health prior to 1960, particularly in
immunization campaigns; it is mainly since the 1960s that the diffusion model has been
applied in a wide variety of disciplines” (p. 334). He identifies nine main traditions that
affected diffusion research: anthropology, marketing, geography, early sociology, rural
sociology, education, public health, communication, marketing, and general sociology
(1983, p. 45). By combining research from different diffusion studies, Rogers theorized
the diffusion of innovation to explain the acceptance of new ideas among individuals and
organizations. The advanced versions of the theory which emphasize the influence of the
social effects on behavioral learning are applied in different disciplines (Stetson &
Davis).
064 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

The basic concept of this theory, despite its limitations can be employed to
explain the green code adoption process. The economic consideration has been an
important concern in adopting green codes. On the other hand, many still believes that
the environmental considerations are not fatal to be adopted as a part of building codes.
However developing and enforcing other building codes had the same challenge. The
meeting notes of the Seismological Society of America Board of Directors in 1910 shows
that even after disastrous San Francisco earthquake, securing state funds for earthquake
study was taboo, since it was assumed that “such discussion will advertise California as
an earthquake region and so hurt business” (Lawson, 1911, p. 3). More than 20 years
later seismic considerations were enforced and added to the building codes. “This
legislation neither hurt nor stalled the boom in real estate and business in the state”
(Thomas, 2011b, para.3).
Kontokosta (2012) enumerates four mechanisms that may cause many green
policies to diffuse.
1-Coercion. Coercion happens when a policy is legislated by the highest level of
authority such as federal or state government.
2- Emulation. Emulation refers to a policy being adopted because of its
embedded benefits rather than its main purpose such as when a city attempts to earn a
green prestige.
3- Competition. This occurs when a policy is adopted to compete with other
cities for resources.
4-Learning. Learning explains action which happens when cities look to other
cites experience for solving their problems.
065 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Kontokosta sugests that city policy makers lack the resourcs necessary to evaluate
different policies and to adopt the best or codify the policies for their local conditions. By
analyzing data of a study of 200 cities’ green policies, he concludes that the mechanisms
of competition and emulation may be more useful in explaining the early stages of green
building policy development over the past decade” (p. 86).
As was mentioned earlier, many cities have adopted a level of LEED certification
for public buildings. A table by USGBC shows that from 2000 to 2012, 391 cities have
implemented LEED requirements for their public buildings. Figure 11 that shows the
number of cities during these years is similar to the diffusion of innovation S-curve
(compare to Figure 10). The innovator cities are Santa Monica and Austin (adopted in
2000); Portland and San José (adopted in 2001); and Los Angeles, Seattle, Morgan Hill,
Battery Park City, Gainesville, Normal, Pleasanton, and San Diego (adopted in 2002).
Comparing Figure 11, which is negatively skewed, with Figure 10 which is a
normal distributed curve, reveals that adopting for the first 50% of LEED adopters
happened in eight years, while by comparison it lasted five years for the second half. The
data indicates that the peak year is specifically mid-2008, when 50% of cites had it
adopted and late majority or last half of the mass audience started adoption, while the
pick point of the curve is a year later in mid-2009. The mass adoption, which starts by
early majority, in this case started six years later and it means that innovators had less
influence on other cities to adopt this policy and also that the policy was not a trend until
years after it was started. The chart illustrates that even though cities have started LEED
adoption from 2000, the peak years of adoption or, “critical mass,” as Rice names it, are
2007-2008 when in each of these years almost 75 cities adopted LEED. “Crucial to all
066 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

diffusion patterns is the achievement of a ‘critical mass,’ or the number of adopters
sufficient to foster sustained adoption beyond that point” (Rice, 2001, p. 248). The curve
of adoption shows after 2011, when laggards started adopting, the speed of adoption
reverted to first year rates and flattered. This means that those cities, which had potential
to adopt LEED, had already adopted it and it is not expected that a mass adoption happen
again. Comparing the number of cities that have adopted LEED certification (see Figure
11) and the projects have been certified by LEED (see Figure 12) shows that the trend for
projects’ LEED certification still continues, while the trend for cities to adopt LEED
adoption is flattened. The dashed curve in the Figure 12 exemplifies a hypothetical
normal growing LEED registration curve.

Figure 11. Number of cities with LEED requirements for public buildings 2000-2012.
Data adopted from Green Building Policies – City, by USGBC Policy Team, 2013,
Retrieved from
www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=16Rb1YhddrK1G3JtbPKslo6zPumi5B
EGrwE81wLg#rows:id=1.
All cities inculding
Cities per year
California
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
067 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

The real curve that illustrates registered projects indicates extra number of
registered projects between years 2007-2009 which might be explained as the building
bubble market at those years. The year 2009 has been the peak of this trend and it is
flatter after that. This might be because of the building market crisis or an alarm for the
end of this regulation mass adopting. Turner Construction Company as a result of a
survey revealed that the interest for LEED certification among real estate owners and
developers has decreased in 2012 to 48%, down from 53% in the 2010 survey and 61% in
the 2008 survey” (Turner Construction Company, 2012, para.9). The data indicates that
from 2000 to 2012, more than 50,000 nonresidential projects have been registered for
LEED certification, and almost 15,500 projects in the U.S. are certified.

Figure 12. Number of nonresidential LEED registered and certified projects per year,
2000-2012. Data adopted from and by USGBC Directory, 2013, Retrieved from
http://www.usgbc.org/projects.
Certified Projects
Registered Projects
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
068 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Among states, California with 94 cities that have adopted LEED clearly has the
lead, Florida is in the second position with 46 cities, and in third is New York with 24
cities. Other states with a high adoption rates are New Jersey with 21 cities and
Washington with 17. These five states include half of the cities and by looking at the
map of the adopted cities (see Figure 13), one can see that the cities are clustered in these
and surrounded states.
Valente and Rogers (1995), studying Ryan and Gross research on the diffusion of
the use of hybrid corn by Iowa farmers, strongly suggest that most people were not
analyzing the information available regarding the new hybrid seed; but rather they were
looking at the farms around them and going with what they observed in their neighbor’s
farms. Again, “individuals do not make decisions independently, but rather are
influenced by the behavior of others” (Salganik, Dodds, & Watt, 2006, p. 854). Centola
(2010) also explains his experience:
I investigated the effects of network structure on diffusion by studying the spread
of health behavior through artificially structured online communities. Individual
adoption was much more likely when participants received social reinforcement
from multiple neighbors in the social network. The behavior spread farther and
faster across clustered-lattice networks than across corresponding random
networks. (p. 1194)
Accordingly, the LEED adoption diffusion among cities shows that the cities
neighboring innovators are more exposed to the idea and are then persuaded to follow the
actions of their neighbor cities. However it should be mentioned that exposing to
innovation is one of the facilities that accelerate adoption process for late majority group.
069 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Those cities, in the Figure 13 which have been surrounded by adopters, and have not
adopted the policy yet are not potentially ready to adopt because of many other barriers.
As an example, the city of Inglewood is surrounded by neighboring cities that all adopted
the LEED requirements but this city has yet to adopt. Interviewing one of the Inglewood
city staff, it became clear that the city barely has adopted CALGreen requirements.
If a city like Austin is among the first adopters, yet other cities in the state of
Texas have not adopted, it is because there is a week tie between the city of Austin and
other state’s cities. Eight cities in the state of Texas have adopted the LEED
requirements for their public buildings; however none of these city policies is restricted
as Austin policy. The city of Austin requires that all municipal buildings over 5,000
square feet obtain LEED Silver or higher certification (USGBC Policy Team, 2013).

Figure 13. Map of the cities adopted LEED requirement for public municipal buildings
2000-2012 (left map in the U.S., and right map in the California). Data adopted from
Green Building Policies – City, by USGBC Policy Team, 2013, Retrieved from
www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=16Rb1YhddrK1G3JtbPKslo6zPumi5B
EGrwE81wLg#rows:id=1.
071 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

In fact, compared to other Texas cities, Austin is a state radical city when it comes
to environmental policies. As Rice explains, Austin is relatively isolated and more likely
connected to other green cities out of its state through its weak ties (Rice, 2001).
Kontokosta (2012) explains his finding from studying the data of green policies
different cities have adopted:
Those cities that followed the earliest adopters (2000 to 2006) may have been
driven by a desire to remain competitive, in terms of job creation, infrastructure
investment, and environmental impact, with the early adopters (e.g., Boston,
Chicago, and Los Angeles following New York City and San Francisco).
Likewise, many cities also may have been driven to enact policies to follow the
lead of larger cities without necessarily competing with them (e.g., Cleveland,
Ohio, Madison, Wisconsin, and Dallas, Texas). (p. 86)
V.6 Summary
In this chapter, the foundations of diffusion of innovation theory were reviewed to
determine successes and failures of promoting sustainable policy in the U.S. The chapter
reviewed five stages of diffusion in the adoption process: knowledge, persuasion,
decision, implementation, and confirmation. Then it compared the five stages of
organizational adoption and explained them as agenda setting, matching, redefining,
clarifying, and routinization. The chapter studied factors that influence the diffusion
process are characteristics of adopters and the innovation, time, communication channels,
and social system. Four mechanisms that a new policy is diffused were describes as
070 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

coercion, emulation, competition, and learning with more evidence of competition and
emulation mechanisms success.
Following the successes and failures of the theory, the chapter went over LEED
adoption by cities as an example of employing theory in green building policy diffusion.
This example suggests that diffusion of green policies follows the same pattern of other
disciplines. Therefore this theory can be employed to explain, predict, and recommend
green policies diffusion.

072 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Chapter Six: Recommendations and Conclusion

This chapter intends to conclude with an investigation of how CALGreen, as a
uniform statewide code, can diffuse, and how it could eventually be adopted by other
states. Since CALGreen is the first comprehensive and mandatory green building code in
the U.S., if successful, there is hope for developing a green code for existing buildings
and adopting its amendments in the state of California. Other state governments may
follow California’s lead, as they have done in the past with other progressive building
regulations requiring green building measures in their state’s buildings codes. Many of
these states may be waiting to see the outcomes of CALGreen or to strive for the green
code as a part of International Building Codes (IBC). This chapter includes the
conclusion, and recommendations for CALGreen revision.
VI.1 The Importance of Evaluating CALGreen
There are many analytical tools for policy investigation such as forecasting,
environmental impact assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and risk analysis. However,
policy evaluation in modern complex societies, with decentralized governments and
numerous factors influencing policy implementation is an extremely complex,
challenging, multidisciplinary, and skill intensive procedure. It requires comprehensive
data both across and within sectors, and interactions between policy makers and
executive teams (Engela & Tania, 2010). The problem is that “sustainable costs and
benefits are not typically directly inputted into a financial model” (Muldavin, 2010, p.
106), with factors such as increased worker productivity. Many factors will affect
073 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

designing indicators for a policy evaluation. However, the common goal is to measure
changes before and after implementation the policy, changes in the target population with
and without the policy, other unforeseen outcomes, and influences of the adopted policy.
Evaluations assess effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of a
policy.
CALGreen officially has been mandated from January 2011, and still is in its
launching period. Evaluation of a policy cannot happen at the same time as its
implementation; rather a time frame or a time-series should be considered to provide the
possibility of monitoring real outcomes. As a building code, CALGreen is reviewed
every three years. The initial version of CALGreen was released in 2008, went into
effect August 2009, and then several jurisdictions voluntarily adopted it. The mandatory
version was released in July 2010 and enforced in January 2011. The next version based
on the three-year code cycle is scheduled to be released July 2013 and will go into effect
on January 2014. Meanwhile a mandatory amendment was enforced on July 1, 2012.
The main goal of the new amendment “was to include a large portion of the state’s
existing building stock that would benefit from having the green building code applied to
them for enforcement” (2013, para.2), according to Michael Nearman, deputy executive
director of the California Building Standards Commission. In 2011, the City of Los
Angeles adopted an ordinance that the provision of code covers additions and alterations
to existing residential and nonresidential buildings and Nearman states that the
amendment adoption was under the influence of positive feedback from Los Angeles
experiences. Therefore, after a very limited time of CALGreen launching, it has been
revised based on a best practice.
074 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Schneider (1986) argues that the primary purpose of evaluation is to inculcate
information to decision-makers to improve performance of government (p. 362). In other
words, policy evaluation studies the relationship between policy intention and
performance (Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989). Even though the new version of CALGreen
has already prepared and will be effective soon, the recommendation on these codes not
only may affect the California Building Standards Commission but other jurisdictions in
the state. Furthermore, this study provides a real and evident base picture of these codes
implementation to other states, cities, or jurisdictions for their consideration. While the
study exemplifies the current status of practicing these codes in different cities, it tries to
predict the future of the codes according to the Diffusion of Innovation theory. But in the
end, as Hills believes, “only time will determine if the CALGreen code lives up to the
expectations stake holders had for it” (2011, para.23).
VI.2 Is CALGreen a Successful Policy?
According to a survey conducted by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in
2007, 92 cities out of a pool of 600 cities with a population over 50,000 had green
building ordinances.
Among the states, California is clearly a leader in number and breadth of green
building programs. Thirty-five cities in California have programs, or 38 percent
of all green building programs in America. For a state that represents
approximately 12 percent of America’s population, this is an extraordinary
accomplishment. (Rainwater, 2007, p. 16).
In 2005, the U.S. conference of Mayors Climate Protection came to an agreement
to reduce GHG emissions in their cities to seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012. As
075 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

of May 17 2013, the mayors of over 1,060 cities had joined the agreement; among them
are 138 mayors from the cities of California with almost 18% of the 88,962,982 of these
cities’ citizens (United States Conference of Mayors, 2013). California cities have also
leadership in adopting LEED requirements for their public buildings. A table by USGBC
shows that from 2000 to 2012, 391 cities have required LEED requirements for their
public buildings, and 94 of those cities, or almost 24%, are from the state of California
(see Figure 11).
Prior to mandating CALGreen codes, 96 cities in the State of California had
adopted a green building ordinance and/or LEED requirements for public buildings, and
this stands for almost 40% of the state population. Starting in February 2004 to enforcing
CALGreen , 41 cities had adopted green ordinances, 94 cities LEED requirements for
public buildings, and 39 cities both policies. Regardless of the fact that these policies
include privately owned buildings or not, it can be concluded that city councils in cities
with 40% of California population, prior to adopting CALGreen, had admitted the
importance of green policies for their jurisdictions. Most of these cities were well
populated which might provide resources for them to study, adopt, and implement green
policies voluntary. As Kontokosta indicates; “cities that adopt green building policies
tend to be larger, both in terms of population and office market size, and have a
population that is healthier, more active, better educated, and younger (2012, p. 74).
Therefore adopting a statewide building green policy in California not only earned the
unanimous vote of the California Standards Commission, but was applauded by the most
important and influential cites in the state. Some of these cities apparently were steps
beyond the CALGreen codes minimum, however the challenge for the California
076 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Building Standards Commission as Dixon (2010) mentioned was “to strike a balance
between green building requirements that have meaningful and measurable impacts
without dooming implementation from the start by requiring more than the market can
bear” (p. 54).
The list of cities with a green policy, before adopting CALGreen, in the Los
Angeles County included Calabasas, Culver City, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena,
Santa Monica, and West Hollywood (Brown, 2010). Table 28 shows the amendments
that were adopted by these cities, and interestingly all these cities have developed green
building ordinances above the CALGreen codes. This substantiates one more time that
many cities in the state were prepared to take action, such as CALGreen adoption. Even
some large cities in the state such as Los Angeles, San José, and San Francisco have
shown that they are ready for more radical actions towards sustainability.
Table 28
Green Building Ordinances before CALGreen Adoption in Several California Cities
City
Effective
Date
Ordinance summary
1 Calabasas
February
2004
City new structure between 500- 5,000 square feet LEED certification and
above 5,000 LEED Silver
2 Culver City
March
2008
1kw solar photovoltaic system per 10,000 square feet of new commercial
or multifamily construction
3
Long
Beach
June
2009
LEED certification for new or addition to residential or mixed use of 50
units & 50,000 square feet or more, a new or addition to mixed-use, or
nonresidential building of 50,000 square feet or more, a funded new
construction or substantial rehabilitation project by the City.
LEED Silver certification for a new or addition to building on City land
consisting of 7,500 square feet or more.
Usable open space and off-street parking requirements flexibility for
LEED Gold or higher certification. 40% trees shaded canopy or 50% min
29 SRI paving materials for parking areas.
Min 1bike parking for every 5 residential units, 1 space for each 5,000
square feet of commercial building area, 1 space for each 7,500 square
feet of retail building area & 1 space for each 10,000 square feet of
industrial building area. Additional 8 lb/square feet of dead load for
solar-ready roofs. Designated Recyclable area.
077 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 28, Continued
City
Effective
Date
Ordinance summary
4
Los
Angeles
May
2008
LEED certification for buildings 50,000 square feet or more if is a new
nonresidential; or more than six stories mixed-use or residential; or new
mixed use or residential building of six or fewer stories but consisting of
at least 50 units and in which at least 80% of the building's floor area is
dedicated to residential uses; or alteration when construction costs
exceed 50% of the replacement cost of the existing building;
or alteration of at least 50 dwelling units in an existing mixed use when
construction costs exceed 50% of the replacement cost of the existing
building.
Expedited city planning department processing for LEED Silver
certification or higher.
5 Pasadena
May
2008
All new City buildings of 5,000 square feet or more, nonresidential
buildings & tenant improvement of 25,000 square feet or more and
Mixed-use projects and multi-family residential at least four stories high,
Renovations of city buildings of 15,000 square feet or more to achieve the
LEED Certified level at a minimum or of 50,000 square feet or more
including applicable city buildings shall meet LEED "Silver" level and
also all use 20% less water than a standard building.
6
Santa
Monica
May
2008
All construction and demolition projects with a cost of 50,000$ or 1,000
square feet or greater; and all City-sponsored construction, demolition and
renovation projects shall complete and submit a WMP, comply with and
submit the adopted water-efficient landscape and irrigation standards.
7
West
Hollywood
October
2007
All new commercial developments and new residential with 3 or more
units shall earn a minimum 60 points of West Hollywood Green Points
program. Including construction waste, storm drains, future photovoltaic,
construction air quality management plan, interior paints and wood
finishes, energy star appliances, permeable surface, water conservation,
storm water diversion, alternative transportation, water saving features,
recyclable material storage, energy efficient outdoor lighting, parking
landscaping, transportation demand management, construction debris
control, environmental protection, pollution, & solid waste, and energy
efficiency

Note. Data adopted from State and Local Government Green Building Ordinances in
California by E.G. Brown, 2010, Retrieved from
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/green_building.pdf
The CALGreen measures, at the time of they were designed, were a combination
of existing state and local ordinances and new requirements (Thomas, 2011a). One of the
most important measures of a green code is energy efficiency. In terms of energy
078 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

efficiency, the mandatory provision of CALGreen has not gone beyond the existing state
requirements in Title 24. On the other hand, the most important, well known, and
homebuyer attractive features of the green buildings is energy efficiency. It means that
energy is considered more important than water and other resources for materials (Turner
Construction Company, 2012).
Some believe that “unlike most environmental issues that involve visible and
contentious debates, state requirements for green buildings have been adopted with little
controversy” (May & Koski, 2007, p. 62). However, CALGreen adoption engendered
much opposition, interestingly not much from business interests but rather more from
professionals and environmental groups. The historical letter of six environmental
groups (including USGBC) to Governor Schwarzenegger on December 2009 opposed the
voluntary measures of CALGreen, Tier 1 and 2. They warned that these measures would
confuse the building marketplace (Roosevelt, 2010). One of the reasons that the building
market set back from opposition, might be that CALGreen “only slightly increase
construction costs (estimated at $1500 per new home) and would provide them with an
economic alternative to private rating systems” (Steinmetz, 2010, para.12). On the other
hand as May and Koski have found, “green buildings are good business” (2007, p. 63).
McDonald & Laustsen (2013) consider “level beyond minimum standards” as one of the
criteria for a successful building policy that can reduce energy consumption and CO2
emissions. Therefore CALGreen tiers provide the potential for encouraging construction
professionals to exceed the minimum standards especially when it includes labeling and
certification. However the structure of tiers including mandatory criteria and voluntary
options makes it more similar to rating systems and questions its liability.
079 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Some also criticized CALGreen adoption during a period of economic depression.
Mark Johnson (2009), the ICC senior vice president responded to this critique: “the best
time for innovation is during a recession” (para.21).
There have been many concerns that adopting CALGreen may discourage LEED
certification by private or public sectors in the state (Watson, 2011). However,
CALGreen is a code and lacks the prestige of a certification such as LEED. Table 29
shows the amount of nonresidential LEED registered and certified projects in California
as a percent of all registered projects between years 2000-2013. On average, the State of
California’s share is 15 percent of nonresidential LEED registered or certified projects.
Even though after 2009 the number of registered projects dramatically declined,
California has retained or increased relative share. Most recently, California had 14%
registered and 17% certified for 2011, 15% registered and certified for 2012, and 20%
registered and 16% certified projects for 2013 up to July 19. Furthermore, compliance
with CALGreen codes, even in its mandatory level, will provide about 15 LEED credits
and it makes obtaining required credits for LEED certification easier.
The fact that some cities, such as the City of Los Angeles, which previously
provided expedited services to LEED pursuing projects discontinued the practice after
adopting CALGreen and provide density incentives for achieving CALGreen tiers should
set alarms for USGBC. However, not only has the number of LEED registration not
flattened but cities kept the required LEED certification for their public projects. As
Selna quotes from Williams “LEED will maintain its value as a marketing tool,
particularly for new office buildings" (2011, para.12).

081 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 29
Percentage of California Nonresidential LEED Registered and Certified Projects to all
Registered and Certified Projects, 2000-2013
All
Registered
Projects
California
Registered
Projects
California
Registered
Projects %
All
Certified
Projects
California
Certified
projects
Certified
Projects %
2000 41 3 7% 2 0 0%
2001 203 26 13% 6 1 17%
2002 317 59 19% 20 2 10%
2003 488 100 20% 44 4 9%
2004 773 113 15% 111 24 22%
2005 1341 184 14% 180 21 12%
2006 1577 239 15% 297 31 10%
2007 4952 787 16% 517 66 13%
2008 7363 1139 15% 940 127 14%
2009 9849 1419 14% 2212 363 16%
2010 5873 809 14% 2938 448 15%
2011 5681 787 14% 3312 556 17%
2012 4554 675 15% 3634 552 15%
2013 2471 500 20% 2172 342 16%

Note. Data adopted from and by USGBC Directory, 2013, Retrieved from
http://www.usgbc.org/projects.
Even though the California governor faced much opposition for mandating the
CALGreen, the support outweighed the opposition and “of course, policy innovators take
risks, and the failure of a new policy to produce expected outcomes exposes these
innovators to political repercussions” (Kontokosta, 2012, p. 71).
Measuring the successes of a policy relies upon monitoring over time. In the
State of California with 58 counties, and 480 cities (Department of Finance, 2012), more
than 540 jurisdictions keep track of CALGreen requirements, tracking implementation
would not be expected to be an easy task, particularly in a limited time after launch. The
080 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

interview results in this study indicated that cities in many different degrees approach the
CALGreen codes and take it seriously.
The result of interviews also indicated that implementation of mandatory part of
CALGreen codes is not more a challenge for the city staffs. However, if measuring the
success of CALGreen relies on measuring its goals, it has one main measurable objective
which is reducing 2.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions (MMTCO
2
e.) by
2020. The dynamic force behind this objective is AB32, which has a goal of reducing the
level of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to the level of 1990. To meet AB 32 targets,
26 MMTCO
2
e. should be reduced by green building strategies, 2.9 MMTCO
2
e. from
CALGreen codes, 3.6 MMTCO
2
e. through voluntary measures beyond CALGreen, and
20 MMTCO
2
e. through existing building (such as state, school, residential, and
commercial buildings) retrofits (Air Resources Board, 2012). Many have questioned the
strength of CALGreen in achieving AB 32 goals for reducing GHG emission (Aiton,
2012). The January 2013 State greenhouse gas reports that for years 2011 and 2012 (up
to October), the reduction is not yet quantifiable (California Environmental Protection
Agency, 2013). Therefore, measuring CALGreen success in this area is still not possible.
However, “there are aspects of sustainability that can create private value, while others
provide value that is enjoyed by society” (Torvestad, 2004, p. 23).
Regardless of whether CALGreen can meet its measurable goals or not, as
discussed earlier, adoption of these codes is a paradigm shift in building codes. While
green ordinance and codes were important issues in the city level, for the first time these
codes were adopted in the state scale and in a comprehensive building code not a series of
ordinances. It not only recognizes theses codes but emphasizes their impotence and
082 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

leaves the issue on other government tables. As Mark Johnson (2009), the ICC senior
vice president suggests, “It’s really an evolution as opposed to a shift. I think we’re
taking a more holistic look at the role of codes and standards” (para. 34). The immediate
effect on other states policy, however, was developing green codes as a chapter of
International Construction Code (International Code Council, Inc, 2010).
VI.3 Adoption of CALGreen Voluntary Measures
The California Building Standards Commission has released the most important
scopes of CALGreen 2013. The main changes for 2014 provision are 1) applying the
code to all residential buildings and 2) applying the code to nonresidential building
additions of 1,000 square feet or greater and to building alterations with a permit
valuation of $200,000 cost or above. It is scheduled to go into effect on Jan 1, 2014. At
the same time, Title 24 has an update, which goes into effect January 2014. The updates
“improve the efficiency of residential construction by 25 percent and non-residential by
30 percent over the previous standards” (LaRue, Cole, & Turnbull, 2013, p. 284).
As the interviews with city authorities in this study showed, almost none of the
cities planned to adopt voluntarily any part of the CALGreen tiers. The adoption of new
CALGreen provisions and energy efficiency in Title 24 for 2014, are important factors
which also discourage voluntary adoption.
The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in its annual
survey reflected that as of May 2012, 362 jurisdictions out of 471 or 80% had not
adopted standards above the CALGreen Code (OPR, 2012). As it was earlier mentioned,
even the data about those remaining 20%, appear inaccurate (based on interviews or city
083 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

websites) and the number of jurisdictions that adopted voluntary green measures is very
limited. For example the city of Calabasas which has adopted the most restricted
ordinance in the Los Angeles county, is on the list of “not adopted standards above the
CALGreen,” while the city of San Gabriel which has not adopted any standard above the
CALGreen codes is on the list of Tier 2 adopters.
Bedsworth and Hanak (2013) believe that the cities’ local actions seem “heavily
influenced by a range of community characteristics reflecting resource availability and
political support” (p. 675). While Portney (2013) sees aspects of the influential factors
wider: “major influences are composed of a combination of local values reflected in an
almost inherent appreciation for the idea of sustainability, the commitment of the city and
its leaders to the concept, and the opportunity structures that are present (p. 321). The
voluntary adoption pattern among interviewee cities showed that neither size, population,
median household income, nor home ownership rate is a decisive factor in adopting
voluntary measures. Portney (2013) by following sustainable cities for years admits this
finding: “neither the income of residents nor the wealth of cities, by themselves, explains
why some cities do more than others” (p. 330). Portney then explains several
characteristics that exert sustainability in cities: 1- creative class citizens, 2- active
environmental advocated communities and organizations, and 3- leaders.
One of the most important factors that facilitates green policy adoption is the city
background in sustainability and green ordinance adoption. Those cities that had already
adopted green and sustainable ordinances not only had taken CALGreen codes more
seriously but also had adopted additional ordinances. This pattern is applicable to other
cities in the state. Since those cities which had sustainable building measures before
084 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

adopting CALGreen have already adopted ordinances above CALGreen mandatory
codes, it can be predicted that less voluntary adoptions will happen in the future. This
norm already observed in adopting LEED certification for cities’ public buildings.
Figure 11 illustrated that LEED adoption among cities has the famous diffusion of
innovation S-shape curve and those cities, which had potential to adopt LEED, after a
few years had adopted it. The curve of LEED adoption flattens after 2011.
On the other hand, most of these adoptions happened at the time of CALGreen
adoption because of the cities pre contribution to green building policies.
VI.4 Adopting of CALGreen by other States
Many have stated that if CALGreen is successfully implemented “without
significant impact on building rates or building costs,” (Shapiro, 2011, para.2) other
states will follow. The interviewees in this study, regardless of being for or against
CALGreen, all agreed that other states would follow California.
California is a large, diverse state, where communities differ widely in size,
income, and political orientation. Many other states have embarked on similar
paths toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with the potential to influence
the local policy context as California’s legislature and state administration have
begun to do. (Bedsworth & Hanak, 2013, p. 12).
Indeed, before adopting CALGreen, most of the innovation and adoption of green
building policies were happening at the city or municipal level. At the same time, most
of the cities with a green policy are located in states that support, influence, or promote
renewable energy, or building energy efficiency with incentives (Kontokosta, 2012).
085 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Figure 14 shows the cities whose mayors have signed the Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement. If we compare this map with Figure 13 (Chapter 5), which shows
the cities adopted LEED certification for municipal public buildings, the same pattern can
be observed. Most of the cities, in both figures, are situated along coasts. Even though
these cities are from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, more than
40 percent of the cities whose mayors have signed the agreement are located in seven
states, California with 138 cities, Florida with 78 cities, Illinois with 55 cities, New York
with 47 cities, Minnesota with 45 cities, North Carolina with 43 cities, and Washington
with 34 cities. Among the 391 cities which have adopted LEED certification for
municipal public buildings, three states (California with 94 cities, Florida with 46 cities,
and New York with 24 cities) make up 40 percent of this group.

Figure 14. Map of the cities that have signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Reprinted from U.S. Mayors, by United States Conference of Mayors, 2013, Retrieved
from http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/ClimateChange.asp
086 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Therefore, if an adoption happens in the future, states like Florida, New York,
Washington, and North Carolina will be among the early adopters and the facts indicate
some of them they have already started it. The process of adoption of statewide green
codes will follow the pattern of adoption of other codes. As a recent example, adoption
of International Building Codes started at 2006, and now almost all states have adopted it,
some states with limitations. The first version of International Green Construction Code
(IgCC) was published on March 2010. IgCC in Florida, Maryland, North Carolina,
Oregon, and Rhode Island has been adopted statewide and in states of Arizona, Colorado,
New Hampshire, and Washington it has been adopted by local governments (ICC, 2013).
International Green Construction Code is more restrictive than CALGreen on energy
efficiency with an estimate of 30% (Steinmetz, 2010). Table 30 shows some differences
between CALGreen and IgCC in water efficiency and energy efficiency, and indoor air
quality.
Table 30
Comparing CALGreen and IgCC for Energy efficiency, Indoor Air quality, and Water
Efficiency

CALGreen
Mandatory Provisions
IgCC
Public Version 2
Code Reference Baseline Consumption
(Site kBtu/ft2)
49.9 51.4
Energy Efficiency Savings (Site kBtu/ft2) 5.9 7.4
Renewable Energy Savings (Site kBtu/ft2) 0.4 2.1
Savings Total (Site kBtu/ft2) 6.3 9.4
Improvement over ASHRAE90.1 ‐2007 (%) 10% 13%

087 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Table 30, Continued

CALGreen
Mandatory Provisions
IgCC
Public Version 2
Water Use Reduction Fixture 100% 100%
Water Use Reduction Hot Water Distribution - 100%
Water Use Reduction Landscaping 100% -
Wastewater Reduction 100% 100%
Water Efficiency Combined 75% 75%
Note. Reprinted from “Green” Codes and Rating Systems: A Framework for Evaluating
the Tools and the Measuring Sticks to Create Better Buildings, by L. Burt, J. Sigmon, B.
Dean & C. Haack, 2012, Retrieved from
http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2012/data/papers/0193-000069.pdf. Copyright
2012 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
CALGreen has not only opened the door for other states but for other countries as
well. Recently a group of Chinese architect and urban planner met with the CALGreen
commission staff to learn about the development process, structure, and implementation
of these codes. “The design and research team is developing a model ‘CALGreen’ city”
(California Building Standards Commission, 2013, p. 4).
VI.5 Recommendations
Binding CALGreen with climate change policies. The future of any statewide
green building policy is tied to the climate change policies in GHG mitigation. Since
building are the main source of GHG emissions and energy consumption in the U.S.,
“building efficiency represents one of the easiest, most immediate and most cost effective
088 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

ways to reduce carbon emissions while creating new jobs” (U.S. Department of Energy,
2009, para.2). Reducing GHG emissions has been one of the core interest of many cites.
Less than 20% of jurisdictions have adopted measures above CALGreen mandatory
codes. In contrast, according to a survey by the California Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research, 296 out of 471 jurisdictions (or more than 60%) have adopted, or are in the
process of drafting policies and/or programs to address climate change, and/or to reduce
GHG emissions for community and municipal activities (Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research, 2012). However as Engel and Orbach (2008) have mentioned “local
actions on climate change are unlikely to ever be sufficient to institute the emission
reductions thought necessary to mitigate climate change, even according to conservative
estimates” (p. 137).
“The state of California faces large structural obstacles in reaching its 2020 goal
let alone the 2050 target” (Wheeler, 2009, p. 132). Wheeler indicates that other than
typical constitutional states impediment, “which are amplified by California’s size,
history, and diversity,” (p. 133) the main problem is land use planning and policies which
are local and over which the state has no control. Another obstacle is the life style in this
state that not only is characterized by city sprawl and “automobile-oriented urban form”
which causes “high levels of motor vehicle use” (p. 126), but “vacation homes,
recreational vehicles, powerboats and large houses may become problematic due to their
resource demands.” A change in the California lifestyle does not seem probable in the
short-term. Shaheen et al. (2009), in a workshop on AB32, reported, “there was strong
consensus that it will take 20 to 40 years (one to two generations) to evolve new land-use
transportation relationships and to change lifestyle choice” (p. 75). Citizens do not
089 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

universally connect personal lifestyle choices to climate change. “What is notable in the
case of climate change is that a relatively small number of citizens are willing to bear the
costs of carbon reductions that will, by definition, have a global impact” (Kontokosta,
2012, p. 80). A report by Freeman et al. (2008) for LAEDC (Southern California
Leadership Council Future Issues Committee) warns that sustainable policies for GHG
reduction in the state of California such as AB 32 will impose significant costs to the
state. The report states that those studies which claim meeting AB 32 target would have
no cost are “overly optimistic”, because “they underestimate costs and overstate benefits”
(p. 28). Therefore, binding policies in sustainable construction and reduction GHG
emission can benefit the state and make both goals achievable.
Sustainable construction codes not rating system. There is no doubt that green
building codes ultimately should and “have to integrate into the building codes.”
CALGreen was an innovation and California left its mark on building green codes, “It’s a
natural progression, and it’s ultimately where the biggest impact on our built environment
is to be had” (Everblue, para.3).
The intent of merging three-region models code, BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI and
designing International Building Codes (IBC) was to develop a uniform building code for
the country like most other countries. The International Code Council beside designing
IBC, has developed a series of codes for specific buildings and conditions such as codes
for energy conservation, existing buildings, fire codes, plumbing codes, mechanical
codes, and green construction codes. IgCC or International green Construction Code,
which is one of those building code series, is in many respects similar to building rating
systems, as is CALGreen. Most of these systems consider sustainable construction in
091 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

term of sustainable site, energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation,
recycling, and indoor air quality. However the indicators of the rating systems consist of
all factors related to building sustainability, while as a code every indicator should be
related to a specific part of building structure and function. For example, water
efficiency can be considered in plumbing codes or energy efficiency in electrical codes.
Evidently since CALGreen and IgCC have copied their structures from rating systems,
they have picked up different criteria from different parts of building codes, however it is
recommended that instead of a set of regulations for sustainable construction, every
aspect of sustainability should be integrated to its related part to form a complete building
code which is sustainable as well.
CALGreen or IgCC. In the time of designing CALGreen, IBC had no chapter for
green codes. However, the first version of IgCC was released in 2010 and after being
adopted by a number of other states, California can join those states. As was explained
earlier, both codes have the same structure, although IgCC is more restricted. By
adopting IgCC, while moving toward restricted codes, the state can save the CALGreen
research and administrative expenses for implementation and monitoring.
Despite the similarities that CALGreen and IgCC share, switching from
CALGreen to IgCC is not an easy process, especially for small and resourceless cities.
Adopting IgCC for higher valued permit buildings such as what was adopted for
additions and alterations for the next cycle of the CALGreen in 2017 and decreasing the
threshold little by little is recommended. This option provides the opportunity for small
cities and less resourceful cities which lack large scale projects and also small projects to
090 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

stay aside from this change for a time or less engaged. Other states may design their own
green policies. However, since IgCC is accessible now, adopting it is the better option.
Adopting Tiers. Two approaches to promoting sustainable construction have
been suggested; mandatory green requirements and voluntary incentives (Kontokosta,
2012). These two approaches have been followed in many public policy areas such as
climate change, and some believe that “voluntary programs cannot be expected to
perform as well as mandatory programs” (Lyon, 2003, p. 15). Others suggest a
mandatory threshold and incentives for higher achievements (King & King, 2005).
While providing incentives for a low threshold policy is not realistic or affordable in
many jurisdictions, the mandatory threshold policy keeps the extra costs affordable for
the building industry. “Regulations can act as an important mandate for a threshold level
of sustainable design and development” (Kontokosta, 2012, p. 70). On the other hand,
mandatory policies have the potential to gradually move beyond minimum standards,
without causing a shock to cities or to the market.
Green building policies encompass a wide range of interventions through building
and zoning codes, tax incentives, and subsidies, among others. These policies can
shape the market by (1) leading by example (e.g., through requirements for
municipal buildings), (2) raising building and design standards, (3) setting targets
and measurable goals, and (4) incentivizing exemplary performance.
(Kontokosta, 2012, p. 69)
The possibility of two options, mandatory standards and voluntary incentives, can
be developed using different techniques, however since mandatory regulations have a
092 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

binding nature, they may face market or local jurisdiction resistance. Incentives, on the
other hand, can remedy some of the cost and accelerate industry acceptance.
1- Mandatory standards. Mandatory regulation can come in standards such as
mandatory “energy efficiency labeling” (King & King, 2005) or codes.
2-Voluntary incentives. Choi groups “incentive-based policy into three
subcategories: administrative incentive, financial incentive, and technical support” (2010,
p. 17). An example of administrative incentives is expedited permitting. Examples of
financial incentives are tax reductions, tax credits, relaxed zoning regulations, height and
density bonuses, grants, municipal loans and bonds, reduced permit fees. Examples of
technical assistance are training and public recognition. In a survey of the local
government incentives for green buildings, it was found that “the most prevalent
incentives desired were expedited permitting, tax reduction, density bonuses and reduced-
cost building permits” (Yudelson Associates, 2007, p. 16). It must be noted that most
incentives are positive in large and business-active cities, where developers may find the
incentives to be cost saving. The financial incentives, on the other hand, might become
“too lucrative to those receiving it and cause an unintended fiscal crisis upon the
government” such as in the case of Las Vegas green building incentive legislation in
2005 (Prum, 2009, p. 171). Furthermore “financial incentives cannot always be
maintained and the changed behavior is not permanent” (Simons, Choi, & Simons, 2009,
p. 153).
Mandating CALGreen at its minimum level, since it was the first statewide green
building policy, was challenging. With the experience that state of California has now
gained, other states will not face the same challenges, and California provided the
093 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

opportunity to the ICC to develop and market its green construction codes. However
adopting CALGreen tiers may hit California with another shock. Most of the
interviewees in this study expressed their concern and unwillingness to adopt CALGreen
tiers. It seems that the new changes for 2014 cycle to the CALGreen codes to include
additions, alterations, and other unnoticeable changes follows this idea.
Therefore, it is suggested that California keep the mandatory provisions of
CALGreen without adding extra pressure for adopting its tiers, and to encourage and
support incentives for higher achievements.
Policy development networking and communication. “The development of
green building policies needs to be based on broad and open discussions and negotiations
among government and the development industry” (Retzlaff, 2010, p. 35). After
interviewing city authorities, it was clear that most of them are not in an active
networking with other cities. Some of them might be in contact and know about others’
experiences, but only based on their personal contacts and interest. These connections
were weaker in smaller cities, where cities already suffer from the lack of resources. As
an example, several cities, including City of Los Angeles, attempted to adopt exceeding
energy efficiency above that of Title 24. Since the California Energy Commission requires
a cost effectiveness analysis for justifying the additional standard, none of the sample
cities except for the City of Glendale was able to meet the requirement to adopt this
amendment. The prepared report by the city of Glendale was laborious and time
consuming and the process lasted a year. With a few modifications, the report could be
used by other cities in the area. The lack of efficient networking between the cities or
competition never provided the opportunity for city authorities to share their experiences.
094 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

It was the same for the customized CALGreen checklist, forms, and handouts that cities
could share but did not. When city staff was asked about the enthusiasm and reservation
among design and construction professionals regarding CALGreen, almost all
interviewees stated that their clients had a neutral reaction to the codes. While
interviewing construction professionals, most of them supported CALGreen. Aside from
the construction professional’s opinions, evaluating their attitude as neutral can be
interpreted as an inefficient and insufficient communication between city authorities and
their clients.
Back to the Rogers (1983) definition of diffusion, it “is the process by which an
innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a
social system” (p. 5). According to this definition, an innovation should be
communicated to diffuse. Furthermore, we should not forget that the number of
innovators is limited and if an innovation that has already been adopted such as
CALGreen in the state of California is communicated, it will be developed in the state
based on the cities experience, and there is a chance for adoption by other states. This
communication also helps smaller and less wealthy cities in the state to benefit from other
cities’ resources. Finally, the most important point is that “the lack of a shared vision and
clear goals for green buildings has led to stagnation in the technological development of
green building products. On the other hand, this ambiguity limits conflict and promotes
consensus on green building issues” (Retzlaff, 2010, p. 35).
Flexibility. Despite the need for a national approach to the green building policy,
flexible policies are needed in a large and diverse country like the United States. These
flexible polices should consider differences in climate types, and in natural and human
5 09 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

resources. Flexibility will also foster green building innovations for new techniques and
materials. Retzlaff suggests a “National Package” which includes general sustainable
measures and also would “allow local governments to choose the measures most
appropriate for them and to enact stricter or more comprehensive green building
requirements” (Retzlaff, 2010, p. 34).
The flexibility in green building codes can have many approaches including but
not limited to size of the project, construction cost, occupancy (residential or
nonresidential), location of the project, building age (new or exciting), and ownership
(public or private). CALGreen in its mandated measures while was a very good start, but
not enough to stick to it. On the other hand raising the bar and not considering the
shortage of the resources for supporting it is another mistake. A combination of different
policies for different situations is the solution however these policies should not have the
variety of cities policies. The target should be toward a national green building code at
the first step and ultimately a national building code, which in its different chapters
consider sustainability. Meanwhile designing different sets of policies and codes with
different level of restriction based on IgCC or CALGreen for different project scales,
different occupancy, building age, and ownership is recommended.
Federal and state green building policies. Most of the green building polices are
defined and restricted in the municipal level with less leadership, direction, regulation, or
management from federal or state governments. Involvement of federal and state
governments can 1) provide research possibilities due to accessible funds, 2) endorse
innovation, 3) reduce cost of green building, 4) include public sector building to the pool
of sustainable buildings, 5) provide incentives for higher achievements and less
096 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

resourceful communities, and 6) promote sustainable building policies for communities
and building industries.
The share of public sector of the nation's construction spending in recent years has
increased noticeably. Figure 15 shows the estimated dollar spending on construction, and
indicates that the public sector’s share has increased from 22% in 2000 to 32% in 2012.
Timothy Simcoe and Michael W. Toffel show “that cities that adopted green-building
policies for their municipal buildings had roughly 90 percent more private-sector green
buildings by 2008 than other cities of similar size, demographics, and environmental
preferences” (Nobel, 2012, para.11). This indicates that by adopting green building
policies, the government not only includes its 30% share but influences the remaining
stock, of which almost half are nonresidential buildings.

Figure 15. The estimate of total and public sector dollar construction spending in the
U.S. 2000-2012. Data adopted from and by U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013,
Retrieved from www.census.gov/construction/c30/c30index.html.
Public Sector %
Total Annual
Construction
Spending
Public Sector
Annual
Construction
Spending
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Billions of dollars
097 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

State and federal incentives can help smaller municipals acceptance rates. This
support assists them to find the best way of assessing buildings and endorses innovation,
which addresses green building costs (Retzlaff, 2010). Executive orders have been one
of the important state level tools for energy efficiency policies. Between years, 2008 and
2012, state governors issued 36 energy efficiency orders. However, “the most effective
orders provide clear direction to state agencies or other affected parties; contain concrete
timelines, incentives, or penalties; and provide opportunities for governors to show
leadership and proactively address important policy issues” (Kambour, 2013, p. 8).
Bedsworth and Hanak (2013) indicate that “regional approaches to climate action – such
as countywide initiatives – have proven effective in overcoming some of the
disadvantages faced by governments in smaller and less wealthy communities, which
often lack the administrative resources to devote to environmental initiatives” (p. 675).
Research and education. Green building policy and regulation still need more
research, since this is a new field and if there has been sufficient research on the
formulation, limited examination on evaluation of these codes has yet to be done. A
study by the International Energy Agency reveals that despite the studies that show that
in the U.S. “there are very large energy savings to be tapped at much lower cost than that
of new energy supplies, …. there has not been any recent comprehensive national or
North American end-use level review of savings potential in existing buildings” (Waide,
Amann, & Hinge, 2007, p. 90). In another research by McDonald and Laustsen (2013)
on comparing 25 building energy efficiency codes all over the world, they have
concluded, “there is no one perfect code” and “it is important to note that progress can be
made in all areas, particularly with regard to enforcement of the codes. The need for
098 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

more onsite construction inspections, post-occupancy energy verification, inspector
training and compliance statistics was highlighted” (p. 20).
Research not only should concentrate on best practice but also on areas such as
incentives. On the other hand, the research results can educates both decision makers and
people who use buildings (Retzlaff, 2010). While larger cities in the state may have
enough resources to support them during building code adoption, smaller cities need state
support for adjustment.
Labeling. As it earlier discussed, building with rating system certification and
specifically LEED or Energy Star certification can earn a better occupancy rate, sale price
and rental rates both from investors and from tenants. In the today unreliable building
market, earning a green label is one of the building industry strategies to secure their
investment. Figure 16 compares peak years of the nonresidential annual construction
spending and nonresidential LEED registered projects between 2000-2012 years. It
indicates that the estimated dollar spending on nonresidential construction between years
2007-2009 has increased extraordinary and the peak year is 2008. As Figure 16
indicates, the extraordinary expending is from private sector, since public sector
expending has moderately increased over the time which is explainable by inflation. The
peak year for LEED registration is year 2009, a year after the peak year of the dollar
spending on construction in 2008. Comparing the real curve of LEED registration and a
normal hypothetical curve, the registered projects in 2009 are almost two times more than
what in a normal growth could be expected. While we know that in 2009, the building
market was slowing down; this extraordinary enthusiasm for the LEED certification can
be explained as coping with the market. Investors who were afraid of the building market
099 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

slowing down at 2009, tried to earn a LEED labeling for their projects to grantee their
investment.
According to Figure 12 this theory is confirmed when we observe no
extraordinary increase in number of certified projects after 2009. Perceptibly not all
LEED registered project get certification, however there is a correlation between LEED
registered projects and LEED certified projects.

Figure 16. Comparison between Pick Years of the Nonresidential Annual Construction
Spending and Nonresidential LEED Registered Projects 2000-2012. Data adopted from
and by USGBC Directory, 2013, Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/projects and from
and by U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013, Retrieved from
www.census.gov/construction/c30/c30index.html
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Billions of dollars
LEED registered
projects
Nonresidential LEED registered projects
A normal hypothetical curve for LEED registered projects
Total annual nonresidential construction spending
Private sector annual nonresidential construction spending
Public sector annual nonresidential construction spending
211 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

The data from USGBC Directory indicates that that less percent of LEED
registered projects in 2009 have been certified comparing to other years. From 9,865
nonresidential projects registered in 2009, up to 2012, only 29% of projects earned
certification. The average rate of earning certification after three years of registration, for
projects registered 2000 to 2008 is 36% and for 2008 is 37%. This specifies that many of
these projects with fewer qualifications were registered in 2009 due to the hope for good
market of LEED certified projects.
CALGreen has no labeling and despite its expenses cannot offer a better
marketing for its investors. While the mandatory measures clearly are part of the
building code, its tiers can be recognized by a green labeling such as “California Green
Building Certification” to encourage investors for tiers.
As it was mentioned earlier a research by Turner Construction Company shows
that the interest for LEED certification among real estate owners and developers has
decreased in recent years. “The most important reasons cited were the cost of the
certification process (82%), staff time required (79%), time required for the process
(75%), and the overall perceived difficulty of the process (74%)” (Turner Construction
Company, 2012, p. 2). CALGreen certifications lack all these barriers.
Existing buildings. By mandating CALGreen at the start point, it was supposed
to target only new construction not remodels, retrofits and additions. Shortly after its
release, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) included existing
nonresidential buildings if the additions and remodels permit exceeds 2,000 square feet or
a $500,000 cost and intends to reduce the threshold to 1,000 square feet or $200,000 cost
for 2014 cycle (California Building Standards Commission, 2012). Since new buildings
210 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

comprise a small percentage of all buildings every year, including additions and remodels
was a very important step, and reducing the threshold as well. While the idea came from
city of Los Angeles adopted ordinances beyond CALGreen mandatory codes, still CBSC
can reduce the threshold to include as much as existing buildings as possible. The city of
Los Angeles has included all additions regardless of its permit value to the scope of
CALGreen codes and all residential and nonresidential alterations with building
valuations over $200,000. Developing various regulations for additions and alterations
like what the city of Los Angeles has provided is recommended.
VI.6 Summary and Conclusion
Although enthusiasm for green building policies in the U.S. started after the
energy crisis in 1970s, it was not until mid-1990s that initiatives for sustainable building
rating systems were introduced. In 2000, the initial version of Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED), the first U.S. green building certification system, was
developed by the USGBC. During the early 2000s, many municipalities and local
governments started developing and adopting green policies, however federal and state
government had less guidance or control over these policies. CALGreen adoption in
2011 was a paradigm shift in building code approach and the immediate effect was
developing IgCC for green commercial construction as a chapter of the International
Building Codes. Many localities and states as well as the federal government have
recently mandated LEED or another rating system certification for their public buildings
or larger nonresidential buildings. However, CALGreen not only was the first green
codes mandated at the state level, but was also designed as a part of a building code and
212 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

not a rating system. The code established a threshold for sustainable new buildings and
shortly after its launch added large renovation and addition to its scope. CALGreen by
many aspects is similar to building rating systems; however it created uniform and
consistent environmental regulations which have raised the knowledge, awareness, and
level of expectations of green codes and moreover have filled the gap between mandatory
codes and voluntary rating systems.
Adopting green codes has been discussed in recent years, however there is still
no federal law designed to mandate and support sustainable building codes.
Theoretically developing these laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
code which was mandated by the federal government in1990, is possible.
CALGreen codes include a mandatory part and two sets of voluntary measures,
Tier 1 and Tier 2, have many similarities with sustainable rating systems such as LEED.
While this study interviews reported that municipalities have successfully adopted the
mandatory part, it suggested that they are unwilling to adopt tiers, even those cities that
have adopted other voluntary sustainable measures for buildings. Since CALGreen has
been implemented for a short-term, evaluating its implementation will not appropriately
its future. To evaluate and predict CALGreen outcomes and future, the diffusion of
innovation theory employed. The theory shows that less volunteer green ordinance by
cities are likely to happen and therefore none of CALGreen tiers voluntary will be
adopted.
The study supporting the state’s act on adding major renovations and additions to
the coverage of the codes, suggests that the state does not push for adopting the tiers.
Instead, it recommends adopting IgCC codes as a national uniform building code with a
213 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

threshold for large size buildings for the next cycle of building codes in 2017 and
decreasing the threshold afterward. The study also suggested decreasing the threshold for
additions and alterations and developing a separate version for them to add as much as
possible existing building to the scope of CALGreen.
CALGreen adoption once again proved that California is a leader in tackling
environmental issues and by being at the forefront, is driving the nation forward.
CALGreen is designed for California and adoption of it by other states (considering their
shortage of available resources) may not be an option, however adopting IgCC or a
combination of these and other available sustainable building codes would be the best
choice for other states, and eventually they will follow California. However as a longer
term vision integrating sustainable construction code into the building codes and
changing the structure of sustainable construction codes from rating systems to building
codes will be desirable. These systems should be considered as to the role they play in
giving leadership and to raise the floor for sustainable mandatory codes.
The municipality level, in many cases, has been the source of developing and
enforcing building green codes in absence of federal and state regulation. While limited
budgets have forced cities to follow other jurisdictions or to adopt private party rating
systems, federal and state funds can be used for research and education.
States’ incentives have influenced cities’ green and energy efficiency policies.
Incentives can play an important role for encouraging cities and construction
professionals to go beyond the codes and to adopt programs for existing buildings. These
incentives provide flexible policies in a large and diverse country like the United States
214 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

with enormous differences in climate types, natural, and human resources and fosters
green building innovations.
The recommendations can be categorized as long, middle, and short-term
strategies. As the long-term strategy, integrating sustainable construction code into the
building codes was suggested. As the middle term strategy, adopting IgCC
systematically starting from its adoption for large-size nonresidential buildings was
suggested. As short-term strategies labeling CALGreen tiers, providing incentives for
higher achievement than CALGreen mandatory codes, increasing the threshold for
alteration and addition, developing version for alteration and addition, concentrating
related research in the state level, developing cities networking, and stepping back from
mandating tiers are steps suggested in this study.

215 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

References
McDonald, N., & Laustsen, J. (2013). A comparative analysis of building energy
efficiency policies for new buildings. Global Buildings Performance Network.
About green communities. (n.d.). Retrieved June 18, 2012, from Enterprise Green
Communities: http://www.greencommunitiesonline.org/about/
Air Resources Board. (2012, February 27). California green building strategy. Retrieved
November 24, 2012, from California Air Resources Board (ARB):
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/greenbuildings/greenbuildings.htm
Aiton, L. (2012, May 30). CALGreen: A commentary. Retrieved May 13, 2013, from
American Institute of Architects, California Council (AIACC):
http://www.aiacc.org/2012/05/30/calcalgreen-a-commentary/
Allen, C. (n.d.). CAL Green California green building code for 2011. Retrieved June 11,
2013, from California Green Solutions:
http://www.californiagreensolutions.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=3438
Allenby, B. R. (1999). Industrial ecology policy framework and implementation (1st ed.).
Prentice Hall.
Aroul, R. R., & Hansz, A. (2012, November 1). The value of "Green:" Evidence from the
first mandatory residential green building program. Journal of real estate
research, 34, 27-49.
Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2012,
from California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm
Bardaglio, P. W. (2009, September-October). To LEED or not to LEED. Today’s
Campus, 18-23. Retrieved Auguest 01, 2010, from Today's Campus:
http://www.todayscampus.com/articles/load.aspx?art=1823
Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., Kok, G., & Gottlieb, N. H. (2006). Planning health
promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
BECP. (2011, May 18). Building energy codes program. Retrieved December 13, 2011,
from U.S.Department of Energy: http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/
Bedsworth, L. W., & Hanak, E. (2013). Climate policy at the local level: Insights from
California. Global Environmental Change, 23(3), 664-677.
216 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability indicators measuring the immeasurable?
(2nd ed.). Earthscan.
Brannigan, F. L. (2007). Brannigan`s building construction for the fire service (4th ed.).
Jonrs & Bartlrtt Pub.
BRE Global. (2013). What is BREEAM? Retrieved May 12, 2013, from BREEAM:
http://www.breeam.org/about.jsp?id=66
Brooks, K. (2011a, September 6). After LEED: The next generation of green building
(Part I). Retrieved June 9, 2012, from Swinerton Builds Tomorrow:
http://www.swinertonbuildstomorrow.com/2011/after-leed-the-next-generation-
of-green-building-part-i/
Brooks, K. (2011b, September 14). After LEED: The next generation of green building
(Part II). Retrieved June 13, 2012, from Swinerton Builds Tomorrow:
http://www.swinertonbuildstomorrow.com/2011/after-leed-the-next-generation-
of-green-building-part-ii/
Brown, E. G. (2010). State and local government green building ordinances in
California. Retrieved November 29, 2012, from Office of the California
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General:
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/green_building.pdf
Build It Green. (2008, November 10). Welcome to the Build It Green local government
site. Retrieved July 8, 2012, from San Luis Obispo County:
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/Green+Building/Build+It+Green+Roadm
ap.pdf
Build It Green. (n.d.). GreenPoints Rated. Retrieved July 02, 2012, from Build it Green:
http://www.builditgreen.org/greenpoint-rated/
California Building Standards Commission. (2010). 2010 California green building
standards code. Sacramento: California Building Standards Commission.
California Building Standards Commission. (n.d.). 2010 California green building
standards code: Nation’s first mandatory statewide standards code to green
construction and fight climate change. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from
California Building Standards Commission/CAL Green:
http://images.emaildirect.com/clients/govpressoffice847/GreenBuildingCodeOnep
ager.pdf
217 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

California Building Standards Commission. (2011, January 1). The CALGreen story.
Retrieved February 12, 2011, from Department of General Services:
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/The-CALGreen-Story.pdf
California Building Standards Commission. (2012, January). Guide to the (Non-
Residential) California Green Building Standards Code . Retrieved January 21,
2013, from California Department of General Services:
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/MasterCALGreenNon-
ResGuide2010_2012Suppl-3rdEd_1-12.pdf
California Building Standards Commission. (2013, Winter). CALGreen. CALCode
Quarterly, 4. Sacramento, California. Retrieved February 6, 2013, from
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/Newsletter/Winter-2013/CBSCNewsletter-
Winter2013.pdf
California Energy Commission. (2012). Local ordinances exceeding the 2008 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/ordinances/
California Energy Commission. (n.d.). AB 2160 green building report. Retrieved
November 28, 2012, from The California Energy Commission:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/greenbuilding/ab2160/index.html
California Energy Standards. (2012, May 08). California's energy efficiency standards
for residential and nonresidential buildings. Retrieved May 17, 2012, from
California Energy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/
California Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). January 2013 state agency
greenhouse gas reduction report card. Climate Action Team. Retrieved from
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2013_CalEPA_Re
port_Card.pdf
California Green Builder. (n.d.). Retrieved June 29, 2010, from
http://www.cagreenbuilder.org
California Green Building Standards Code. (2009). 2008 California green building
standards code. Sacramento: California Building Standards Commission.
Carsman, H., & Kim, J. (2009). How do the green-building ratings programs stack up?
Daily Journal of Commerce.
Center for Housing Policy Leadership. (2008, October). Stretched thin: The impact of
rising housing expenses on America’s owners and renters. Retrieved May 14,
218 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

2012, from National Housing Conference (NHC):
http://www.nhc.org/media/documents/StretchedThin.pdf
Centola, D. (2010, September 3). The spread of behavior in an online social network
experiment. Science Magazine, 329, 1194-1197. doi:10.1126/science.1185231
Ching, F. D., & Winkel, S. R. (2006). Building codes illustrated: A guide to
understanding the 2006 International Building Code (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Choi, E. (2010). Green on buildings: The effects of municipal policy on green building
designations in America’s central cities. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 2(1),
1-21.
CHPS. (n.d.). Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS). Retrieved June 18,
2012, from http://www.chps.net
Cooknick, K. T. (2012, April 25). The next wave in green building codes. Retrieved April
13, 2013, from American Institute of Architects, California Council (AIACC):
http://aiacc.org/2012/04/25/the-next-wave-in-green-building-codes/
Cote, A. E., & Grant, C. C. (2003). Codes and standards for the built environment. In A.
E. Cote, Fire Protection Handbook (National Fire Protection Association) (19
ed., Vol. 1, pp. 51-65). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA).
Department of Finance. (2012, June). Historical census populations of counties and
incorporated cities in California, 1850–2010. Retrieved February 10, 2013, from
California Department of Finance:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/historical
_census_1850-2010/view.php
Dictionary-Definition of Building Code. (n.d.). Retrieved October 20, 2011, from
Webster's Online Dictionary: http://www.websters-dictionary-
online.net/definitions/building+code
Dixon, C. (2010, March). Straight green: Say hello to CALGreen California’s new green.
Walls & Ceiling, 52-52. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/bnp/wallsceilings_201003/index.php?startid=
53#/52
DOE/EIA. (2011, June 30). Residential sector energy price and expenditure estimates,
selected years, 1970-2009, United States. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from U.S.
Energy Information Administration:
http://205.254.135.7/state/seds/sep_prices/notes/pr_print2009.pdf
219 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Durham, M. T. (2011). Counsel's role in sustainable solutions: Pay now or pay later.
Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment, 31(3), 19-80.
Eberhard, W. T. (2010, Nvember). The total cost of building green and LEED
certification. Retrieved December 19, 2012, from Eberhard Architects LLC:
http://www.eberhardarchitects.com/pdfs/The%20Total%20Cost%20of%20Buildi
ng%20Green,%20Abbreviated.pdf
Eisenberg, D., Done, R., & Ishida, L. (2002). Breaking down the barriers: Challenges
and solutions to code approval of green building. Tucson, AZ: Development
Center for Appropriate Technology.
Energy Performance Services. (n.d.). CALGreen building code. Retrieved November 24,
2012, from Title 24 Express: http://www.title24express.com/what-is-title-
24/calgreen-building-code/
Energy Star. (n.d.). History of Energy Star. Retrieved June 13, 2012, from Energy Star:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_history
Engel, K. H., & Orbach, B. Y. (2008). Micro-Motives and state and local climate change
initiatives. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 2, 119-137.
Engela, R., & Tania, A. (2010). Implementing a government-wide monitoring and
evaluation system in South Africa. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved
from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/ecd_wp_21_so
uth_africa.pdf
Environments For Living. (n.d.). Retrieved June 23, 2012, from
http://www.environmentsforliving.com
EPA. (2010a, December 22). Basic information: Definition of green building. Retrieved
May 17, 2012, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm
EPA. (2010b, December 22). Frequent questions. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from
U.S. Environment Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/faqs.htm
EPA. (2012, December 9). Green building: Building and energy codes. Retrieved June 7,
2013, from United States Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/region9/greenbuilding/building-codes.html
201 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Everblue. (n.d.). CalGreen vs. LEED: Battle of the green building standards. Retrieved
December 12, 2012, from Everblue: http://www.everblue.edu/blog/calgreen-vs-
leed-battle-of-the-green-building-standards
Executive Order S-3-05. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2012, from Office of Edmund G.
Brown Jr.: http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=1861
Federal Environmental Executive. (2003, September 30). The federal commitment to
green building: Experiences and expectations. Retrieved November 24, 2012,
from U.S. Environment Protection Agency:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fedcomm_greenbuild.pdf
FERC. (2005, May 16). Energy policy act of 1992. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC): http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-
ord-reg/epa.pdf
Fowler, K. M., & Rauch, E. M. (2006). Sustainable building rating systems. U.S.
Department of Energy by Battelle. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Retrieved May 22, 2012, from
http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/attachments/444b4634-1f2d-4b48-a8db-
6077535a6c99.pdf
Freeman, G., Sidhu, N. D., & Poghosyan, M. (2008). The AB 32 challenge: Reducing
California's greenhouse gas emissions. LAEDC Consulting Practice. Retrieved
January 3, 2013, from
http://www.laedc.org/sclc/documents/Global_AB32Challenge.pdf
Fuerst, F., & McAllister, P. (2011, July 15). Green noise or green value? Measuring the
effects of environmental certification on office values. Real State Economic, 39,
45-69. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6229.2010.00286.x
Gardner, R. (2009). LEED and local biodiversity. Retrieved June 8, 2013, from
Hudsonia: http://hudsonia.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/31-July-LEED-
doc.pdf
Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2008). A Room with a viewpoint: Using social norms
to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research,
472-482.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (2012). Annual planning survey results
2012. Sacramento.
Green Building Initiative. (2013a). Green Building Programs. Retrieved June 9, 2013,
from The Green Building Initiative: http://www.thegbi.org/green-globes/
200 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Green Building Initiative. (2013b). Green Globes: A nationally recognized alternative to
LEED. Retrieved June 9, 2013, from Green Building Initiative:
http://www.thegbi.org/green-globes/green-globes-leed-green-building-
certification.shtml
Green Code Pro. (2012). CALGreen survey results mixed. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
Green Code pro: http://greencodepro.com/calgreen-survey-results-mixed
Grumman, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). ASHRAE green guide. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
GSA Public Buildings Service. (2011). Green building performance. Washington: U.S.
General Services Administration. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from
http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/Green_Building_Performance.pdf
Gyourko, J., & Saiz, A. (2006). Construction costs and the supply of housing structure.
Journal of Regional Science, 46(4), 661–680.
Hammitt, J. K., Belsky, E. S., Levy, J. I., & Graham, J. D. (1999, December). Residential
building codes, affordability, and health protection: A risk-tradeoff approach. Risk
Analysis, 19(6), 1037–1058.
Hammurabi's Code of laws. (n.d.). Hammurabi's code of laws (L. W. King, Trans.).
Retrieved February 23, 2013, from Exploring Ancient World Cultures:
http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm
Hill, C. G. (2011, November 18). CALGreen. It’s finally here. Now what? Retrieved
December 12, 2012, from Construction Law Musings:
http://constructionlawva.com/calgreen-its-finally-here-now/
Horton, D. (2011, March 18). Greening the codes CALGreen versus LEED. Retrieved
November 24, 2012, from U.S. Green Building Council LA Chapter:
http://www.usgbc-la.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/USGBC-LA_CALGreen-
vs-LEED_Daniele-Horton-03-2011.pdf
ICC. (2012a, February). Bylaws for the International Code Council, Inc. Retrieved May
12, 2012, from International Code Council:
http://www.iccsafe.org/AboutICC/Documents/bylaws.pdf
ICC. (2013, April ). International Codes-Adoption by State (Updated 04-26-2012).
Retrieved April 13, 2013, from International Code Council:
http://www.iccsafe.org/gr/documents/stateadoptions.pdf
Inbuilt . (2010, February). BREEAM versus LEED. Retrieved December 9, 2011, from
Inbuilt Ltd: http://www.inbuilt.co.uk/media/406565/breeamvsleed.pdf
202 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2013, from ISI:
http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/
International Code Council, Inc. (2010, November). International Code Council.
Retrieved November 25, 2010, from International Green Construction Code
Public Version 2.0: http://98.129.193.74/IGCC-PV2_PDF.pdf
International Code Council, Inc. (2003, May 23). The impact of building codes on
property insurance. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from International Code
Council (ICC): http://www.iccsafe.org/gr/Documents/AdoptionToolkit/04-
Why_Choose_the_I-Codes.pdf
International Code Council, Inc. (n.d.). Introduction to model codes. Retrieved February
22, 2012, from International Code Council (ICC):
http://www.iccsafe.org/gr/Documents/AdoptionToolkit/04-Why_Choose_the_I-
Codes.pdf
International Energy Agency. (2008). Energy efficiency requirements in building codes,
energy efficiency policies for new buildings. International Energy Agency (IEA).
Retrieved May 17, 2012, from http://www.iea.org/g8/2008/Building_Codes.pdf
International Living Building Institute. (2009, November). Living Building Challenge
2.0. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from International Living Building Future
Institute: https://ilbi.org/lbc/LBC%20Documents/LBC2-0.pdf
International Living Future Institute. (n.d.). Bring the Living Building Challenge to your
country. Retrieved June 6, 2013, from International Living Future Institute:
http://living-future.org/ilfi/countries
Johnson, M. (2009). A world of green buildings: The International Code Council's green
building codes. Green Technology Magazine. (B. Graves, Interviewer) Retrieved
May 1, 2013, from http://www.green-
technology.org/green_technology_magazine/markjohnson.htm
Kambour, A. (2013, May 8). Executive orders to advance energy efficiency and
renewable energy. Retrieved June 8, 2013, from National Governors Association:
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-
publications/page-eet-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/using-
executive-orders-to-advanc.html
Kats, G., Alevantis, A., Mills, E., & Perlman, J. (2003). The costs and financial benefits
of green buildings. California’s Sustainable Building Task Force. Retrieved July
18, 2012, from
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/design/costbenefit/report.pdf
203 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Kibert, C. J. (2004). Green buildings: An overview of progress. Journal of Land Use &
Environmental Law, 19(2), 491-569.
Kibert, N. C., & Kibert, C. J. (2008, March/April). Sustainable development and the U.S.
green building movement: Profitable development projects can be good for the
planet, too. Probate & Property Magazine(22), 21-25. Retrieved from
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/probate_property_magazine_home/rppt
_publications_magazine_2008_ma_sustainable_kilbert.html
King, N. J., & King, B. J. (2005). Creating incentives for sustainable buildings: A
comparative law approach featuring the United States and the European Union.
Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 23(3), 397-459.
Knaap, G., Gardner, A., Bennett, R., Simon, M., & Varner, C. (2011). LEED in the
nation’s capitol: A policy and planning perspective on green building in
Washington, D.C. In S. Matthew, Sustainability in America's cities: creating the
green metropolis (pp. 91-111). Island Press.
Kontokosta, C. E. (2012). Greening the regulatory landscape: The spatial and temporal
diffusion of green building policies in U.S. cities. The Journal of Sustainable Real
Estate, 3, 68-90.
Kubba, S. (2010). LEED practices, certification, and accreditation handbook. Elsevier.
Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/70810390/1856176916-LEEDA
LaRue, A. M., Cole, N. C., & Turnbull, P. w. (2013). What if this actually works?
Implementing California's zero net energy goals. In F. P. Sioshansi (Ed.), Energy
efficiency: Towards the end of demand growth (1st ed., pp. 274-304). Waltham:
Elsevier Inc.
Lawson, A. C. (1911). Seismology in the United States. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 1. Society by Stanford University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb6n39p17c&brand=oac4&doc.view=entir
e_text
LBNL Indoor Environment Group. (2012). Cost effectiveness of improving indoor
environments to increase productivity. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from
Indoor Air Quality Scientific Findings Resource Bank:
http://www.iaqscience.lbl.gov/performance-cost.html
LEED-ND. (2010, April). LEED 2009 for neighborhood development certification
frequently asked questions (FAQ). Retrieved September 24, 2010, from U.S.
Green Building Council:
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7188
204 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Leej. (2011, April 26). LEED certification: The first step to greener real state. Retrieved
July 15, 2012, from Truda: http://trudalane.net/resources/node/458#FN10
Les, K. (2008, September). Greener buildings help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Western City , 84, 21-24. Retrieved from Institute for Local Goverment.
Levin, A. (2012, March 2). California is on cutting edge for green building regulations.
Retrieved December 18, 2012, from Green Building Elements:
http://greenbuildingelements.com/2012/03/02/guest-post-california-is-on-cutting-
edge-for-green-building-regulations/
Lyon, T. P. (2003). Voluntary versus mandatory approaches to climate change
mitigation. Washington: Resources for the Future.
Matthiessen, L. F., & Morris, P. (2004, July). Costing green: A comprehensive cost
database and budgeting methodology. Retrieved November 23, 2012, from Davis
Langdon:
http://www.davislangdon.com/upload/images/publications/USA/2004%20Costing
%20Green%20Comprehensive%20Cost%20Database.pdf
May, P. J., & Koski, C. (2007). State environmental policies: Analyzing green building
mandates. Review of Policy Research, 24(1), 49-65.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989). Implementation and Public Policy (2nd
Edition ed.). University Press of America.
McFann, G. J. (2006). History of Building Codes. Retrieved June 7, 2013, from TPREIA:
http://www.tpreia.com/historyofcodes.html
McManus, P. (2004). Vortex cities to sustainable cities: Australia's urban challenge.
University of New South Wales Press.
Miller, N., Spivey, J., & Florance, A. (2008, July 12). Does green pay off? Retrieved
October 29, 2012, from U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC):
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5537
Muldavin, S. R. (2010). Sustainable property financial analysis. Green Building Finance
Consortium.
Murray, C. E. (2009). Diffusion of innovation theory: a bridge for the research-practice
gap in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 108-117.
Natural Resources Defense Council. (n.d.). Rankings/ scoring/ criteria. Retrieved July
10, 2010, from Smarter Cities: http://smartercities.nrdc.org/rankings/scoring-
criteria
205 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Nearman, M. (2013, April 17). CALGreen in 2012: A Wider Shade of Green. (B. Graves,
Interviewer) Retrieved April 25, 2013, from http://www.green-
technology.org/green_technology_magazine/index.php?cID=136
Neimeyer, T. F. (2011, September). Envisioning an infrastructure sustainability rating
system. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from CE News:
http://www.cenews.com/magazine-article----
envisioning_an_infrastructure_sustainability_rating_system-8462.html
NGO Committee on Education. (1987). Our common future, chapter 2: Towards
sustainable development. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from UN Documents:
http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm
Nobel, C. (2012, November 19). LEED-ing by example. Retrieved May 25, 2013, from
Harvard Business School: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7112.html
Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants. (2003, April 16). Analyzing the
cost of obtaining LEED certification. Retrieved July 2, 2010, from clean air-cool
planet: http://www.cleanair-
coolplanet.org/for_communities/LEED_links/AnalyzingtheCostofLEED.pdf
Oldenburg, B., & Glanz, K. (2008). Diffusion of innovation. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, &
K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research,
and Practice (4th ed., pp. 313-333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Opp, S., & Saunders, K. L. (2013, January 2). Pillar talk: Local sustainability initiatives
and policies in the united states-finding evidence of the “Three E’s”: Economic
development, environmental protection, and social equity. Urban Affairs Review,
1-40. doi:10.1177/1078087412469344
OPR. (2012, May 3). Annual planning survey results. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR):
http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/2012_APSR.pdf
Orlandi, M. A., landers, C., Weston, R., & Haley, N. (1990). Diffusion of health
promotion innovations. In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health
behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 288-313). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Parolek, D. G., Parolek, K., & Crawford, P. C. (2008). Form based codes: A guide for
planners, urban designers, municipalities, and developers. John Wiley and Sons.
206 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Perry, R. (2000). Diffusion theories. In E. F. Borgatta, & R. J. Montgomery (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Sociology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 711-718). New York: Macmillan
Reference USA.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (2009, May). Residential & commercial sectors
overview. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
(C2ES):
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Overview%20ResCom%20Final.pdf
Platts, a Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (2005). Tips for using LEED
wiisely. Platts, a Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Retrieved
November 21, 2012, from
http://www.touchstoneenergy.com/efficiency/bea/Documents/TipsforUsingLEED
Wisely.pdf
Plunz, R. (1990). A history of housing in New York city. New Yory: Columbia University
Press.
Portney, K. E. (2003). Taking sustainable cities seriously: Economic development, the
environment, and quality of life in American cities . Massachusetts:
MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.
Portney, K. E. (2013). Taking sustainable cities seriously: Economic development, the
environment, and quality of life in American cities (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: MIT
Press.
Prum, D. A. (2009). Creating state incentives for commercial green buildings: Did the
Nevada experience set an example or alter the approach of other jurisdictions?
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 34(1), 171-207.
PRWeb. (2011, April 22). Reducing the costs of CALGreen implementation by using
green code Pro. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from PRWeb:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/4/prweb8327268.htm
Rabina, D. L., & Walczyk, D. J. (2007). Information professionals' attitude toward the
adoption of innovations in everyday life. Information Research, 12(4), 1-15.
Rainwater, B. (2007). Local leaders in sustainability: A study of green building programs
in our nation’s communities. Washington: The American Institute of Architects.
Retrieved February 20, 2013, from http://green.e-arc.com/images/Green-
Building-Study.pdf
Rekow, S., & Stover, K. (2009). CIEB Green Globes for the continual improvement of
existing buildings. Retrieved July 10, 2012, from BOMA:
207 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

http://www.bomampls.org/BOMA/scriptcontent/StaticPages/PDF/GreenGlobesCl
ass-03.10.2009.pdf
Retzlaff, R. (2010). Developing policies for green buildings: What can the United States
learn from the Netherlands? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 6(1), 28-
38.
Rice, R. E. (2001). Diffusion of innovations and communication. In J. Schement (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of communication and information (Vol. 1, pp. 248-253). New
york: Macmillan Reference USA.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion Theory. In L. Breslow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public
Health (Vol. 2, pp. 334-336). Macmillan Reference USA, Gale Cengage.
Roosevelt, M. (2010, January 11). Environmental groups try to block parts of California's
green building code. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/11/business/la-fi-green-building11-2010jan11
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watt, D. J. (2006, February 10). Experimental Study of
Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market. Science, 311,
854-856. Retrieved August 23, 2012, from Science.
Schendler, A., & Udall, R. (2005, October 26). LEED is broken; Let’s fix it. Retrieved
November 24, 2012, from Aspen & snowmass:
http://www01.aspensnowmass.com/environment/images/LEEDisBroken.pdf
Schneider, A. L. (1986, Jul. - Aug). The evolution of a policy orientation for evaluation
research: A guide to practice. Public Administration Review, 46(4), 356-363.
Scott. (2011, April 12). Reducing the Costs of CALGreen Implementation. Retrieved
December 13, 2012, from Green Code Pro: http://greencodepro.com/reducing-the-
costs-of-calgreen-implementation
Scott. (2012, May 23). CALGreen survey results mixed. Retrieved December 12, 2012,
from Green Code Pro: http://greencodepro.com/calgreen-survey-results-mixed
Scott. (2013, January 31). 2013 California Building Standards code adopted. Retrieved
April 12, 2013, from Green Code PRO: http://greencodepro.com/2013-california-
building-standards-code-adopted
Seiter, D. (2007, March). Greening the Codes or Codifying Green? Retrieved December
20, 2012, from Built Green: http://www.builtgreen.org/news/articles/2007/2007-
03-Greening_the_Codes.pdf
208 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Selna, R. (2011, January 21). Green initiatives shape construction, energy usage.
Retrieved December 8, 2012, from San Francisco Chronicle :
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Green-initiatives-shape-construction-
energy-usage-2478757.php
Shaheen, S. A., Benjamin-Chung, J., Allen, D., & Howe-Steiger, L. (2009). Achieving
California’s land use and transportation greenhouse gas emission targets under
AB 32:Exploration of potential policy processes and mechanisms. California Air
Resources Board and the California Department of Transportation.
Shane, A. M., & Graedel, T. E. (2000). Urban environmental sustainability metrics: A
provisional set. Jornal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(5), 643-
663.
Shapiro, S. (2011, January 3). New year's green: Two policy measures that may change
the face of US sustainability. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Green Building Law:
http://www.greenbuildinglawblog.com/2011/01/articles/regulations/new-years-
greentwo-policy-measures-that-may-change-the-face-of-us-sustainability/
Sharma, M., & Kanekar, A. (2008, April). Diffusion of innovations theory for alcohol,
tobacco, and drugs. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 52.
Simon & Associates, Inc. (2010a). CALGreen non-residential comparison to LEED for
Building Design & Construction 2009. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from Build
It GREEN:
http://builditgreen.org/_files/GovRel/AIACC/CALGreen_NonRes_LEED_Comp
_v1_Sep01.pdf
Simon and Associates. (2010b). CALGreen low-rise residential comparison to
GreenPoint Rated and LEED for Homes. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from
Build It GREEN:
http://builditgreen.org/_files/GovRel/AIACC/CALGreen_Res_GPR_LEED_Com
p_v1_Sep01.pdf
Simons, R. A., Choi, E., & Simons, D. M. (2009). The effect of state and city green
policies on the market penetration of green commercial buildings. Journal of
Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 139-166.
Smith, T. M., Fischlein, M., Suh, S., & Huelman, P. (2006). Green building raiting
systems: A comparison of the LEED and Green Globes systems in the US.
University of Minnesota.
Solomon, N. B. (2005, June). How is LEED faring after five years in use?: The best-
known rating system for green buildings in the United States, LEED struggles
209 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

with its own rapid rise in popularity. Architecture Record, 135-142. Retrieved
from McGraw-Hill Construction - Continuing Education Center.
Spilger, A. (2011, March 14). CALGreen versus LEED. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from
Sustainable Industries: http://sustainableindustries.com/articles/2011/03/calgreen-
versus-leed
State of California Executive Department. (2004, December 14). Ececutive order S-20-
04. Retrieved February 21, 2011, from The California Energy Commission:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/greenbuilding/documents/executive_order_s-20-
04.html
Stein, J., & Reiss, R. (2004, September 1). Ensuring the sustainability of sustainable
design: What designers need to nnow about LEED. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from
Platts: http://dada.cca.edu/~mbaum/Readings/07/Ensuring_Sustainability.pdf
Steinmetz, C. J. (2010, August 19). First statewide mandatory green building code
published; Effective January 1, 2011. Retrieved March 12, 2013, from Manatt:
http://www.manatt.com/PrintPages/newsletter.aspx?id=5685
Stetson, V., & Davis, R. (1999). Health education in primaryh health care projects: A
critical review of various approaches. CORE Group.
Steven Winter Associates, Inc. (2004). GSA LEED cost study final report. U.S. General
Services Administration. Retrieved July 13, 2012, from
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/GSAMAN/gsaleed.pdf
Sullens, W. (2010, December 2). Cost of building green in California. Retrieved
December 26, 2012, from Stop Waste:
http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/cost_of_green_building_in_alameda_county_12-
02-2010.pdf
Svoboda, E. (2008, February 8). America's 50 greenest cities. Retrieved July 21, 2010,
from Popular Science: http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-
02/americas-50-greenest-cities
Symes, M., & Pauwels, S. (1999). The diffusion of innovation in urban design: The case
of sustainability in Hulme development guide. Urban Design, 97-117.
The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). (2003). The business case for
sustainable design in federal facilities. U.S. Department of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/bcsddoc.pdf
221 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Thomas, M. (2011a, February 24). CALGreen: A primer on California’s green building
code. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from Brightworks:
http://www.brightworks.net/Documents/Brightworks-Webinar-CALGreen-
Primer.pdf
Thomas, M. (2011b, March 16). CALGreen: Triumphs and challenges. Retrieved
December 26, 2012, from Bright Works:
http://brightworksadvisors.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/calgreen-triumphs-and-
challenges/
Torvestad, G. R. (2004). The Role of sustainability in the real estate finance and
investment. Unpublished master's thesis, California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo.
Tubbs, J. S., & Meacham, B. J. (2007). Egress design solutions: a guide to evacuation
and crowd management planning. John Wiley and Sons.
Turner Construction Company. (2012, November 8). Green building market barometer
2012: Executive summary. Retrieved from Turner:
http://www.turnerconstruction.com/news/item/30a1/Turner-Construction-
Companys-Latest-Green-Building-Market-Barometer-Reveals-New-Findings-on-
Green-Buildings-and-Certification
Tweed, K. (2011, January 6). Will CALGreen building codes be adopted in other states?
Retrieved December 12, 2012, from Greentech Media:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/will-calgreen-building-codes-be-
adopted-in-other-states/
U.S. Department of Energy. (2008, April 14). Energy intensity indicators: Trend data.
Retrieved September 01, 2010, from U.S. Department of Energy: Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/intensityindicators/total_energy.html
U.S. Department of Energy. (2009, June 29). Obama administration launches new energy
efficiency efforts. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from U.S. Department of Energy
Building Technologies Program (BTP):
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/news_detail.html?news_id=12607
U.S. Department of Energy. (2012, September 17). Energy Intensity Indicators: Trend
Data. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from U.S. Energy Information
Administration: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/eii_trend_data.html
U.S. Department of Energy; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Building
Technologies Program. (2010, October). Building regulatory programs multi-year
220 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

program plan. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from Building Energy Codes Program:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/regulatory_pro
grams_mypp.pdf
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2012, September 27). Total energy data.
Retrieved June 7, 2013, from U.S. Energy Information Administration:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/m/eii_delivered_energy.html
U.S. Green Building Council – Chicago Chapter. (2009). Regional green building case
study project: A post ‐occupancy study of LEED projects in Illinois. Year 1 Final
Report. Retrieved December 19, 2012, from
http://www.cnt.org/repository/Regional-Green-Building-Case-Study.pdf
United States Conference of Mayors. (2013, May 17). Cities that have signed on.
Retrieved May 19, 2013, from U.S. Mayors:
http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/ClimateChange.asp
USGBC . (2013, April 4). Directory. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from U.S. Green Building
Council: http://www.usgbc.org/projects
USGBC. (2010, February 12). U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved June 9, 2013,
from Major Changes from LEED-NC v2.2 to LEED 2009 NC:
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6700
USGBC. (2011a). LEED 2009. Retrieved December 08, 2011, from U.S. Green Building
Council: http://www.usgbc.org/about/leed/current-version
USGBC. (2011b). LEED for Neighborhood Development. Retrieved November 15, 2012,
from U.S. Green Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/neighborhoods
USGBC. (2012, January 19). List of top 10 states for LEED green buildings released.
Retrieved January 25, 2012, from U.S. Green Building Council:
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/Top%2010%20States_Jan2012_FINAL.pdf
USGBC Central Ohio. (n.d.). What is LEED? Retrieved May 30, 201, from U.S. Green
Building Council: http://usgbccentralohio.org/leed/what-is-leed/
USGBC Policy Team. (2013, April 15). Green building policies - city. Retrieved April
15, 2013, from
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=16Rb1YhddrK1G3JtbP
Kslo6zPumi5BEGrwE81wLg#rows:id=1
USGBC: LEED rating systems. (n.d.). Retrieved September 02, 2010, from U.S. Green
Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222
222 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Valente, T. W. (1996). The diffusion network game. Connections, 19(2), 30-37.
Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications.
Oxford University Press, USA.
Valente, T. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1995). The origins and development of the diffusion of
innovations paradigm as an example of scientific growth. Science
Communication, 242-273.
Vanderpool, C. (2009, Auguest 17). LEED: Follow or blaze your own green trail.
Retrieved June 8, 2013, from Triple Pundit:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/08/leed-follow-or-blaze-your-own-green-trail/
Venables, A. (2005, March 1). Tips for using LEED wisely. Retrieved October 28, 2012,
from E Source:
http://www.touchstoneenergy.com/efficiency/bea/Documents/TipsforUsingLEED
Wisely.pdf
Vermilya, H. P. (1941, May). Building codes: Administration vs. techniques. The Journal
of Land & Public Utility Economics, 17(2), 129-137.
Vos, R., Devinny, J. S., Hagekhalil, A., Mmeje, H., Boyle, H., & Bullard, K. (2005).
Sustainability indicators for the city of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
integrated resources plan. Los Angeles: Water Environment Federation.
Waide, P., Amann, J. T., & Hinge, A. (2007). Energy efficiency in the North American
existing building stock. International Energy Agency. Retrieved May 25, 2013,
from
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/NAM_Building_Sto
ck-1.pdf
Walls, D. (2009). Game changer: California's green building code. (R. Palmese,
Interviewer) Retrieved June 8, 2013, from green-technology: http://www.green-
technology.org/green_technology_magazine/gamechanger.htm
Walls, D. (2010). CALGreen-The Making of California's new green building code. (B.
Graves, Interviewer) Green Technology Magazine. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from
http://www.green-technology.org/green_technology_magazine/davewalls2.htm
Watson, E. (2011, February 1). L.A. takes the lead in replacing LEED. Retrieved May 12,
2013, from Greenberg Blawg:
http://environmentallawblog.greenbergglusker.com/2011/02/la_takes_the_lead_in
_replacing.html
223 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Websters online dictionary. (2006). Building code. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from
Webster's Online Dictionary: http://www.websters-dictionary-
online.net/definitions/building+code
Wheeler, S. M. (2009). California’s climate change planning: Policy innovation and
structural hurdles. In S. Davoudi, J. Crawford, & A. Mehmood (Eds.), Planning
for climate change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation (pp. 125-135).
London: Earthscan.
Worthen, B. (2010, June 22). CALGreen, LEED & ASHRAE 189.1 overview. Retrieved
December 10, 2012, from City of Sacramento:
http://www.sacgp.org/documents/GBTF_6-22-
10_CalGreen_LEED_ASHRAE_Bill-Worthen.pdf
Yudelson Associates. (2007). Green building incentives that work: A look at how local
governments are incentivizing green development. The National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties Research Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.naiop.org/~/media/Research/Research/Research%20Reports/Green%2
0Building%20Incentives%20That%20Work/greenbuildingincentives.ashx
Yudelson, J. (2013, January 9). Top green building trends for 2013. Retrieved May 22,
2013, from Green Building Council Russia:
http://www.rugbc.org/en/resources/articles/green-building-trends-2013

224 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix A
CALGreen Voluntary Measures of Tier 1 and Tier 2 for Residential Buildings
Area of Policy Tier 1 Residential Tier 2 Residential
1 Planning and Design
1-1 Site Selection
Development in an infill, a greyfield, or a EPA-
recognized and remediated Brownfield site

1-2 Site Reservation Supervision and education the development staff

1-3
Deconstruction
&
reuse of existing
materials
Reuse salvaged materials of deconstructed existing
building including light& plumbing fixtures, doors
& trim, masonry, electrical devices, appliances, and
foundations or portions of it

1-4
Site
Development
Orient buildings to optimize the use of solar energy,
Soil analysis, Stockpile displaced topsoil for reuse
in a designated area and covered or protected from
erosion. Restore construction to consistent with
native vegetation species and patterns or limit turf
areas not more than 50 % of the total landscaped
area or utilize at least 75% native California or
Hydrozoning irrigation techniques
Permeable surfaces ≥ 20% of the total parking,
walking, or patio surfaces
Install roof constructions that have a thermal mass
over the roof membrane with a weight of at least
25lb/sf.
Roofing materials minimum 3-year Aged Solar
Reflectance, Thermal Emittance and, & SRI≥ than
the Table A4.106.5(1)
Identify & delineate the
construction area by
fencing or flagging to
limit construction
activity to the
construction area
limit turf areas not more
than 25 % of the total
landscaped area
Water permeable
surfaces not less than
30%
Roofing materials
minimum 3-year Aged
Solar Reflectance, Thermal
Emittance and, & SRI≥
than the Table A4.106.5(2)
2 Energy Efficiency
2-1
Energy
performance
Exceeding the California Energy Code 15%
Exceeding the California
Energy Code 30%
2-2
Building
Envelope
Radiant roof barriers, Exterior window shading,
seal Joints and other openings

2-3
Air Sealing
Package
Reduced infiltration
2-4
HVAC Design,
Equipment and
Installation
Innovative systems, Commissioning of HVAC
Systems, Gas-fired heating equipment, Cooling
equipment, Duct leakage, Install a whole house &
Ceiling fans ENERGY STAR ceiling fans

2-5
Water Heating
Design,
Equipment and
Installation
Gas-fired storage & tankless water heater
2-6 Lighting
Building lighting consists of ≥90% ENERGY
STAR qualified hard-wired fixtures

2-7 Appliances
Each appliance provided by the builder meets
ENERGY STAR

225 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix A, Continued
Area of Policy Tier 1 Residential Tier 2 Residential
2 Energy Efficiency

2-8
Renewable
Energy
Install a solar photovoltaic (PV) energy efficiency
system exceed the California Energy Code
requirements by 15%
Energy efficiency
system exceed the
California Energy Code
requirements by 30%
3 Water Efficiency & Conservation
3-1 Indoor Water Use
Max flow rate at a kitchen sink faucet≤ 1.5 gallons
per minute at 60 psi.
Non-water supplied urinals and waterless toilets
ENERGY STAR
Dishwashers use ≤5.8
gallons per cycle
3-2
Outdoor Water
Use
Low-water consumption irrigation system. The
use of potable ≤65% of ETo times the landscape
area
The use of potable
≤60% of ETo times the
landscape area
3-3
Water Reuse
Systems
Install dual water piping for future use of recycled
water or discharge from the clothes washer or
other fixtures to be used for an irrigation system

4 Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency
4-1
Foundation
Systems
utilize a Frost-Protected Shallow Foundation
Reduction in cement use ≥ 20%
Reduction in cement
use ≥ 25%
4-2
Efficient Framing
Techniques
Efficient lumber size, Building dimensions and
layouts designed to minimize waste, Use pre-
manufactured building systems and Pre-cut
materials

4-3 Material Sources
Use prefinished, concrete floors, recycled or
renewable sources building materials RCV≥10%
RCV≥15% content
value
4-4
Water Resistance
& Moisture
Management
Drainage around foundations, Roof drainage,
flashing details & Roof overhangs, Material
protection, Ice and water barriers, Door protection

4-5
Construction Waste
Disposal Reduction,
Disposal&
Recycling
Construction waste reduction≥65% and
Documentation
Construction waste
reduction≥75%
5 Environmental Quality
5-1

Pollutant Control
No added formaldehyde (NAF) or Ultra-Low
Emitting Formaldehyde (ULEF) Certified resilient
flooring systems≥80% Install Certified Low-
emitting VOC thermal insulation
Certified resilient
flooring systems≥90%
Install Certified No-
Added Formaldehyde
(NAF) thermal
insulation
5-2
Indoor Air Quality
& Exhaust
Filters with a higher value than MERV 6
Direct-vent appliances

226 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Note. Data adapted from 2010 California green building standards code, by California
Building Standards Commission, 2010, Sacramento, California Building Standards
Commission.

227 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix B
CALGreen Prerequisite and Elective Measures of Tier 1 and Tier 2 for Residential
Buildings
Area of Policy Tier 1 Residential Tier 2 Residential
1 Planning and Design Prerequisites
1-1 Site Development
Stockpile displaced topsoil for
reuse in a designated area and
covered or protected from
erosion
Permeable surfaces ≥ 20% of the
total parking, walking, or patio
surfaces &Roof covering ≥ than
the value in Table A4.106.5(1)
Identify & delineate the construction
area by fencing or flagging to limit
construction activity to the
construction area
Permeable surfaces ≥ 30% of the total
parking, walking, or patio surfaces
Roof covering ≥ than the Table
A4.106.5(2) &Roof covering ≥ than
the Table A4.106.5(2)
1-2
Planning and Design
Elective Measures
Min 2 Elective Measures from
Division A4.1
Min 4 Elective Measures from
Division A4.1
2 Energy Efficiency
2-1 Energy performance
Exceeding the California Energy
Code 15%
Exceeding the California Energy Code
30%
2
Energy Efficiency
Elective Measures
Min 4 Elective Measures from
Division A4.2
Min 6 Elective Measures from
Division A4.2
3 Water Efficiency & Conservation
3-1 Indoor Water Use
Max flow rate at a kitchen sink
faucet≤1.5 gallons per minute at
60 psi
Max flow rate at a kitchen sink
faucet≤1.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi
ENERGY STAR dishwashers use ≤5.8
gallons per cycle
3-2 Outdoor Water Use
Low-water consumption
irrigation system. The use of
potable ≤65% of ETo times the
landscape area
The use of potable ≤60% of ETo times
the landscape area
3
Water Efficiency &
Conservation
Elective Measures
Min 1 Elective Measures from
Division A4.3
Min 2 Elective Measures from
Division A4.3
4 Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency
4-1 Foundation Systems Reduction in cement use ≥ 20% Reduction in cement use ≥ 25%
4-3 Material Sources
Use prefinished, concrete floors,
recycled or renewable sources
building materials RCV≥10%
Use prefinished, concrete floors,
recycled or renewable sources building
materials RCV≥15%

228 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix B, Continued
Area of Policy Tier 1 Residential Tier 2 Residential
4 Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency

4-5
Construction Waste
Disposal Reduction,
Disposal& Recycling
Construction waste
reduction≥65% and
Documentation
Construction waste reduction≥75%

4
Material Conservation
& Resource Efficiency
Elective Measures

Min 2 Elective Measures from
Division A4.4

Min 4 Elective Measures from
Division A4.4
5 Environmental Quality

5-1
Pollutant Control
Certified resilient flooring
systems≥80%
Install Certified Low-emitting
VOC thermal insulation
Certified resilient flooring
systems≥90%
Install Certified No-Added
Formaldehyde (NAF) & Low-emitting
VOC thermal insulation

5
Environmental
Quality Elective
Measures
Min 2 Elective Measures from
Division A4.5
Min 1 Elective Measures from
Division A4.5
Note. Data adapted from 2010 California green building standards code, by California
Building Standards Commission, 2010, Sacramento, California Building Standards
Commission.

229 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix C
CALGreen Voluntary Measures of Tier 1 and Tier 2 for Nonresidential Buildings
Area of Policy Tier 1 Nonresidential Tier 2
Nonresidential
1 Planning and Design
1-1
Site
Selection
Community connectivity within a 1/2 mile radius of at
least ten basic services, readily accessible by pedestrians,
Development in an infill, a greyfield, or a EPA-recognized
and remediated Brownfield site

1-2
Site
Reservation
Reduce development footprint and optimize open
space by exceeding the zoning’s open space requirement
for vegetated open space 25% , if there is no local zoning
requirement in place vegetated open space area equal to
the building footprint area, or vegetated open space equal
to 20% of the total project site area

1-3
Deconstruction
and reuse of
existing
materials
Maintain ≥75% of existing building structure, Reuse
existing interior nonstructural elements
≥50 of the area of the completed building, salvage
additional items including light & plumbing fixtures, and
doors

1-4
Site
Development
Management plan for storm water runoff rate and quality,
Low impact development, Short-term bicycle parking for
5% of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a
minimum of one two-bike capacity rack, Long-term
bicycle parking For buildings with over 10 tenant-
occupants covered, lockable enclosures with permanently
anchored racks lockable bicycle rooms with permanently
anchored racks; and lockable, permanently anchored
bicycle lockers for 5% of tenant-occupant motorized
vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space
and changing/shower facilities for tenant-occupants, 10%
designated parking for any combination of low-emitting,
fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles of total spaces,
Parking stall marking, Vehicle designations, Electric
vehicle charging, Reduce parking capacity, Exterior wall
shading, Orient buildings to protect the building from
thermal loss, Hardscape shaded, or light colored/high-
albedo materials, or open-grid, Reduce nonroof heat
islands, Roofing materials min 3-year aged solar
reflectance, CRRC initial or 3-year aged thermal
emittance, and SRI ≥ than the values specified in Table
A5.106.11.2.1
12% designated
parking for any
combination of low-
emitting, fuel-
efficient and
carpool/van pool
vehicles of total
spaces

Roofing materials
min 3-year aged
solar reflectance,
CRRC initial or 3-
year aged thermal
emittance, and
SRI ≥ than the
values specified in
Table
A5.106.11.2.2
2 Energy Efficiency
2-1
Energy
performance
Exceeding the California Energy Code 15%
Exceeding the
California Energy
Code 30%

231 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix C, Continued
Area of Policy Tier 1 Nonresidential Tier 2
Nonresidential
2
Energy Efficiency
2-2
Prescriptive
Approach
ENERGY STAR equipment and appliances,
Energy monitoring and commissioning of HVAC
systems, Functional performance testing

2-3
Building
Envelope
Fenestration products and exterior doors, joints, roof, and
other opening, Certified insulation and roofing products

2-4
HVAC Design,
Equipment and
Installation
Certified space-conditioning equipment & systems,
Certified water-heating, Prohibited pilot lights for natural
gas central furnaces, cooking equipment and pool and spa
heaters, Controls for space-conditioning systems,
Certified Pipe insulation

2-5 Lighting
One watt power per indicator light, Automatic time
switch control devices, Occupant sensors, motion sensors
& vacancy sensors, Multilevel occupant sensor,
Automatic day lighting control devices, , Interior photo
sensors, Multilevel astronomical time-switch, Outdoor
astronomical time-switch controls, Dimmers, Indoor &
outdoor lighting controls, Multilevel lighting controls ,
Shut-off controls

2-6
Renewable
Energy
On-site renewable energy source≥ 1% of the electric
power

2-7
Elevators,
Escalators &
Other
Equipment
controls to reduce the energy demand of elevators in
buildings with more than one elevator or two escalators

2-8
Energy
Efficient Steel
Framing
Design steel framing for maximum energy efficiency

3 Water Efficiency & Conservation
3-1
Indoor Water
Use
Reduce indoor flow rate & calculation for 30% savings
Reduce indoor flow
rate & calculation
for 35% savings
3-2
Outdoor Water
Use
Water budget, water efficient landscape irrigation design
to reduces the use of potable ≤60% of ETo times the
landscape area, graywater collection system for onsite
subsurface irrigation
The use of potable
≤55% of ETo times
the landscape area
4 Material Conservation and Resource efficiency
4-1
Efficient Framing
Techniques
Employ advanced wood framing techniques or OVE,
Modular design

230 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix C, Continued
Area of Policy Tier 1 Nonresidential Tier 2
Nonresidential
4 Material Conservation and Resource efficiency
4-2
Material
Sources
Regional materials ≥10% of cost, Bio-based materials ≥50%
bio-based content, Rapidly renewable materials ≥2.5% of
total materials value, Salvaged, refurbished, refinished
or reused material≥5% of total value, Recycled material
≥10% of total value, Cement and concrete made with
recycled products
Recycled
material ≥15%
of total value
4-3
Enhanced
Durability &
Reduced
Maintenance
Select materials for longevity, minimal deterioration,
require no or little finishing, can be reused or recycled at the
end of their service life in the project

4-4
Water
Resistance
And Moisture
Management
Weather-resistant exterior wall and foundation envelope,
Moisture control measures

4-5
Construction
Waste
Disposal
Reduction,
Disposal And
Recycling
Construction waste reduction≥65% , Reused or recycled 100
% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils
resulting primarily from land clearing
Construction
waste
reduction≥80%
4-6
Life Cycle
Assessment
Select materials assemblies based on life cycle assessment of
their embodied energy and/or GHG emission potentials

4-7
Building
Maintenance &
Operation
Commissioning for new buildings 10,000 square feet and
over

5 Environmental Quality
5-1
Pollutant
Control
Indoor air quality (IAQ) during construction and post-
construction, Composite wood products made with
either CARB-approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF)
resins, Composite wood products made with either
CARB-approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins
or CARB-approved ultra-low emitting formaldehyde
(ULEF) resins, Certified resilient flooring
systems>80% , Install Certified Low-emitting VOC
thermal insulation, Filters with a higher value than
MERV 11, Finish material pollutant control, Certifies
carpeting, Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control
CARB-approved
ultra-low emitting
formaldehyde
(ULEF) resins,
Certified resilient
flooring
systems>90%
Install Certified No-
Added Formaldehyde
(NAF) thermal
insulation
5-2
Indoor
Moisture
Control
Meet or exceed the California Building Code
5-3
Environmental
Comfort
Lighting and thermal comfort controls, Provide
daylight spaces and views, Acoustical control

5-4
Outdoor Air
Quality
No Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) HVAC
232 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Note. Data adapted from 2010 California green building standards code, by California
Building Standards Commission, 2010, Sacramento, California Building Standards
Commission.

233 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix D
CALGreen Prerequisite and Elective Measures of Tier 1 Tier 2 for Nonresidential
Buildings
Area of Policy Tier 1 Nonresidential Tier 2 Nonresidential
Minimum Mandatory
Meet all of the provisions of
Chapter 5
Meet all of the provisions of
Chapter 5
1 Planning and Design
1-1
Designated Parking for
Fuel Efficient Vehicles
10% designated parking for any
combination of low-emitting,
fuel-efficient and carpool/van
pool vehicles of total spaces
12% designated parking for any
combination of low-emitting, fuel-
efficient and carpool/van pool
vehicles of total spaces
1-2 Cool Roof
For roofing materials having solar
reflectance, thermal emittance or
Roof Slope < 2:12 SRI 64
Roof Slope > 2:12:
< 5 lb/sf SRI 16
= 5 lb/sf SRI 10
For roofing materials having solar
reflectance, thermal emittance or
Roof Slope < 2:12 SRI 78
Roof Slope > 2:12:
< 5 lb/sf SRI 23
= 5 lb/sf SRI 30
1
Planning and Design
Elective Measures
Min 1 Elective Measures from
Division A5.1
Min 3 Elective Measures from
Division A5.1
2 Energy Efficiency
2-1 Energy Performance
Exceeding the California Energy
Code by 15%
Exceeding the California Energy
Code by 30%
3 Water Efficiency & Conservation
3-1 Indoor Water Use
Reduce indoor flow rate for 30%
savings
Reduce indoor flow rate for 35%
savings
3-2 Outdoor Water Use
Water efficient landscape
irrigation design to reduces the
use of potable ≤60% of ETo times
the landscape area
The use of potable ≤55% of ETo
times the landscape area
3-3
Water Efficiency &
Conservation Elective
Measures
Min 1 Elective Measures from
Division A5.3
Min 3 Elective Measures from
Division A5.3
4 Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency
4-2 Material Sources
Recycled material ≥10% of total
material cost
Recycled material ≥15% of total
material cost
4-5
Construction Waste
Disposal Reduction,
Disposal And
Recycling
Construction waste reduction
≥ 65%
Construction waste reduction
≥ 80%
4
Material Conservation
& Resource efficiency
Elective Measures
Min 1 Elective Measures from
Division A5.4
Min 3 Elective Measures from
Division A5.4
234 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix D, Continued
Area of Policy Tier 1 Nonresidential Tier 2 Nonresidential
5 Environmental Quality
5-1 Pollutant Control
Certified resilient flooring
systems≥80%
Comply with CHPS VOC limits
Certified resilient flooring
systems>90%
Comply with CHPS VOC limits
No-Added Formaldehyde
(NAF) thermal insulation
5
Environmental Quality
Elective Measures
Min 1 Elective Measures from
Division A5.5,
Min 3 Elective Measures from
Division A5.5,
Additional Measure
Min 1additional elective measures
from any division
Min 3additional elective measures
from any division

Approximate Total
Measures
14 24
Note. Data adapted from 2010 California green building standards code, by California
Building Standards Commission, 2010, Sacramento, California Building Standards
Commission.

235 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix E
Group A Questionnaire: Interview questions for City authorities (to be refined based on
the result of interviews)
The purpose of this study is to investigate a new approach to the current best practices in
sustainability by evaluating a number of different Los Angeles County cities that practice
CALGreen. I would like to ask you some questions about experiences you and your
department have had from January 2011 that CALGreen was mandated to now. With
your approval, I would like to record the interview; however, I will not identify the
specific quotes by names. If are interested, you can have the results of the research at the
end of it.
City:
Interviewee Name:
Interviewee Position:
Office Address:
A. General Question
1. Which city office/department typically reviews CALGreen codes? Is there any third
party involved reviewing?
2. What was the experience of preparation for enforcing these new codes? Does your
department still have additional training and educational programs for staff and
clients?
-Internal meeting with staff
-Staff training with CALGreen
-Create new work product and processes in advance to be ready for implementation
236 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

-Outreach efforts to local design and construction professionals to inform them of the
new codes
-Reviewed upcoming project log to identify new projects that would be subject to
CALGreen
-Any other
-How well prepared were the local design and construction professionals to address
CALGreen on their projects when the code launched on Jan 1 2011? Extremely well,
well, prepared, somewhat, not at all
-How about now? Very well prepared, well prepared, prepared, somewhat prepared,
still not prepared.
-Does your department provide any type of tools or resources to local design and
construction professionals to assist with CALGreen implementation? Customize
CALGreen checklist or forms, web based information, training, telephone helping,
any other?
-Did your department receive a budget increase for implementing CALGreen? If so
what percentage or amount?
3. How many projects have been reviewed by your department for CALGreen codes up
to now
Status of projects:
Plan Check Residential:
Plan Check Non-residential:
Permit/inspection Residential:
Permit/Inspection Non-residential:
237 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

4. How did you approach the CALGreen amendments, what level did you select and
why? How about energy efficiency above the Title 24 code minimum?
5. Does your department plan to mandate CALGreen Tier 1 or 2 in the future?
6. Does your city have any special green program for existing buildings?
7. I assume that some builders will still want to use the LEED program. Does your
current green building program provide expedited services if builders certify their
projects through LEED?
B. Plan Checking
8. How many plan checkers are there for CALGreen? Percent comparing to all plan
checkers?
9. What is the fee for CALGreen codes plan check? Percent comparing to all other plan
checks? Does it cover the city expenses?
10. What is the process involved in CALGreen codes checking? Is it done as a separate
process or simultaneously with other codes plan check? Does your department have
any third-party plan-checking requirement for CALGreen codes?
-What methods of CALGreen documentation do you require for proving compliance
by design & construction professionals? Specific notes on drawings, submission
CALGreen specific forms & checklists, custom forms & checklists supplied by your
jurisdiction?
11. How the CALGreen plan checking increased the overall plan checking time?
C. Inspection
12. How many inspectors do you have for enforcing CALGreen? What is the percent
comparing to all Inspectors?
238 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

13. What is the fee for CALGreen codes inspection? Percent comparing to all other
inspections? Does it cover the city expenses?
14. Does your department have/ask for any third-party inspecting requirements for
CALGreen codes?
15. What is the nature of the CALGreen inspection? Does your department inspect
CALGreen codes in a separate process or simultaneously with other codes
inspection? How many times/per project inspection for CALGreen codes?
16. How the CALGreen inspection increases the overall inspection time?
D. Opinion
17. One of the goals of CALGreen was to create a uniform and consistent environmental
regulation for new California buildings. Do you think that adopting parts of Tier 1 or
2, even though they might be pre-adopted green codes, has a conflict with this goal?
18. One of the concerns about CALGreen codes is that they are more prescriptive than
performance-based. Have you heard any complaint about it from plan checkers about
it? Do you feel any problems/differences in CALGreen plan checking comparing to
other codes?
19. Have you received support for the CALGreen from your clients? Have you received
any complaints?
-How would you rate the enthusiasm for CALGreen among design & construction
professionals? Accept the code, neutral, somewhat dislike the code, dislike the code
20. Are there specific concerns from the design and construction communities regarding
CALGreen codes? Do you have advice on how to help them get prepared?
239 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

21. Commissioning is often cited as one of the more expensive aspects of a green
building; but it can also ensure a green building works properly. Is mandatory
commissioning a big challenge for your clients?
22. Do you know of any extra cost of CALGreen codes requirements for builders
excluding permit and inspection?
23. What are/were the challenges you see for the building department (or any department
that review CALGreen codes) in implementing the code?
Rate these:
-Building department staff unwillingness to embrace the code
-Unwillingness to accept code by the design & construction industry
-Time consuming
-Staff understanding of CALGreen requirements
-Budget and staffing limitations
-How would you categorize the level of effort required to implement CALGreen on
projects in your jurisdiction? No additional Effort- Moderate - Significant
24. What is your experience with statewide building codes vs. City codes? Do you think
that mandating codes by the State undermines cities independency or it facilitates
builders whom may have different projects in different cities?
25. What are the most important factors in a city facilitate adopting of higher level of
CALGreen codes?
26. California is often a bell-weather state for new green building trends. Do you think
that other states may adopt statewide green codes like California?
241 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

-Do you feel that the implementation of CALGreen is resulting in greener or more
sustainable projects in your jurisdiction?
-What are the most important lessons you have learned about the implementation of
these codes?

240 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

Appendix F
Group B questionnaire: Interview questions for architects/builders/developers (to be
refined based on the result of interviews)
The purpose of this study is to investigate a new approach to the current best practices in
sustainability by evaluating a number of different Los Angeles County cities that practice
CALGreen. I would like to ask you some questions about experiences you and your
company have had from January 2010 that CALGreen was mandated to now. With your
approval, I would like to record the interview; however, I will not identify the specific
quotes by names. If you are interested, you can have the results of the research at the end
of it.
Interviewee Name:
Interviewee Position:
Office Address:
E. General Question
1. In which LA County cities have you/your company projects been reviewed for
CALGreen codes?
2. What was the process of enforcing these new codes? Did the cities provide any kind
of training or educational programs for you? Do the cities still have ongoing training
and educational programs for professionals?
3. Do you experience additional time and cost for design to meet CALGreen codes
requirements?
4. How much is the extra cost of CALGreen codes for construction (percent comparing
to other costs)?
242 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

5. Is there any green code for existing buildings in cities that you work?
F. Plan Checking
6. How many of your projects have been plan checked for CALGreen? In which cities?
7. What is the fee for CALGreen codes plan check? What would be the percentage
comparing to all other plan checks? Does it seem reasonable?
8. What is the process involved in CALGreen codes plan checking? Do cities check
CALGreen codes, in a separate process or simultaneously with other codes plan
check? Do cities have any third-party plan-checking requirement for CALGreen
codes?
9. Has CALGreen plan checking require extra time? If so how much comparing to other
codes?
G. Inspection

10. How many of your projects have been inspected for CALGreen codes? In what
cities?
11. How much is the fee for CALGreen codes inspection? Percent comparing to all other
inspections? Does it seem reasonable?
12. What is the CALGreen inspection process like? How do cities inspect for CALGreen
codes? In a separate process or simultaneously with other codes inspection? Do cities
have or ask for any third-party inspecting requirements for CALGreen codes?
13. Has CALGreen codes inspection require extra time? If so how much comparing to
other codes inspection process?
H. Opinion
243 THE ROLE OF CALGREEN CODES

14. Do you support CALGreen Codes? Why?
15. Do you believe that CALGreen code helps reduce costs of green buildings?
16. Is there any extra green amendment code in cities where you are undertaking
construction projects? If you work in different cities, have different CALGreen
amendments caused confusion?
17. Have you had any experience with LEED certification? If yes how do you compare
LEED certification with CALGreen codes?
18. Do you think that CALGreen certification like LEED certification may increase the
building value for rent or sale? If so how do you evaluate it comparing to the extra
expenses for CALGreen codes?
19. What is your main complaint about CALGreen codes?
20. What are the special parts in CALGreen codes that:
a. are not clear and confusing
b. expensive
c. time consuming
21. Have you ever had any projects which need commissioning? If so, was it challenging
for you and how?
22. One of the concerns about CALGreen codes is that they are more prescriptive than
performance-based. Have you experienced problems/differences in CALGreen plan
checking comparing to other codes?
23. California is often a bell-weather state for new green building trends. Do you think
that other states may adopt statewide green codes like California? How do you define
your experience in other states if you have any projects there?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this project is to review the development, launch, and implementation of the green codes and rating systems for requiring and assessing sustainability in cities throughout the United States, and particularly those in Los Angeles County. This research considers green codes and sustainable rating systems in three steps: 1) green codes and sustainable rating systems reviews, 2) California Green Building Standard (CALGreen) code, and 3) practicing sustainability. The main question that this project seeks to answer is to what extent the CALGreen codes promote sustainable buildings and help to reduce their costs. CALGreen is a new policy, and there has been almost no research related to its implementation. CALGreen is the first comprehensive and mandatory green building code in the United States and if successful, gives hope for developing green code for existing buildings and adopting its amendments in the California. Other state governments may follow California's lead as they have done in the past, and require green building measures in their state buildings codes. The research goal is to formulate a series of recommendations for CALGreen improvement and for sustainable building codes. A series of interviews with cities' staffs in the Los Angeles County revealed the current status of implementation of CALGreen codes. The recommendations presented here are based on the more common complaints and suggestions of interviewees, the shared experiences, and other research results. Since CALGreen has been launched for a limited time, the Diffusion of Innovation theory is applied here to discuss the future prospects of CALGreen codes.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evergreen economies: institutions, industries and issues in the green economy

PDF

Do sustainability plans affect urban sustainability outcomes in Santa Monica, San Francisco, and San Jose?

PDF

Embedding sustainability: a change management guide for ports

PDF

An investigation on using BIM for sustainability analysis using the LEED rating system

PDF

Structure, agency, and the Kuznets Curve: observations and implications for sustainability planning in U.S. cities

PDF

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: repositioning to a sustainable parks & open space system

PDF

The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters

PDF

Why go green? Cities' adoption of local renewable energy policies and urban sustainability certifications

PDF

Nonprofit organizations and the environmental policy outcomes: a systematic inquiry into the role of different types of nonprofits to influence the processes and outcomes of the environmental policy

PDF

Skin fit and retrofit: challenging the sustainability of curtainwall practice in tall buildings

PDF

Urban conservation in the Middle Eastern historic cities: globalization and lack of identity

PDF

Civic associations, local governance and conflict prevention in Indonesia

PDF

Beyond regulation: special improvement districts, design review, and place-making in New Jersey

PDF

Improvement of health care delivery in America: medical office compliance certification system implementation

PDF

Green healthcare, an environmentally sustainable methodology: an investigation of the ecological impacts of the healthcare industry and the role of green initiatives in sustainable medical services

PDF

The spatial economic impact of live music in Orange County, CA

PDF

Social construction of the experience economy: the spatial ecology of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles

PDF

Governance and urban design: Omaha by design

PDF

Productive frictions and urbanism in transition: planning lessons from traffic flows and urban street life in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

PDF

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

Asset Metadata

Creator Rezvan, Azita (author)

Core Title The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 10/01/2013

Defense Date 06/18/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag CALGreen,green building codes,LEED,OAI-PMH Harvest,sustainable rating system

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Banerjee, Tridib K. (committee chair), Howe, Con (committee member), Mazmanian, Daniel A. (committee member), Noble, Douglas (committee member)

Creator Email arezvan@usc.edu,azitarezvan@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-332740

Unique identifier UC11297088

Identifier etd-RezvanAzit-2065.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-332740 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RezvanAzit-2065.pdf

Dmrecord 332740

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rezvan, Azita

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA